You've probably heard of the Apocrypha (also called the Deuterocanonical Books), and have probably heard some opinions about it too. Here are some more. You can support TMBH on Patreon if you'd like. Look me up at patreon.com/tmbh
As a Catholic Christian I am with you that we (Catholic's and Protestant's) have way more in common than differences. Let us embrace those areas where we agree for the glory of God and Jesus. God Bless you brother. Keep up your ministry.
What the protestants conveniently forget to tell us is that the original 1611 KJV contained 73 books. Later protestants disagreed with each other and decided to label some of the books as 'deuterocanonical' - and that paved the way for the removal of these books. No reason was given as to why these books were deuterocanonical. No wonder there are 10000+ floating protestants who do not agree with each other.
Great video. A side note: Luther DID like the Apocrypha - he even included it in his own Bible-translation. However, he didn't consider them canonical - but as good books for christian to read.
One of the reasons he didn't include them was because the dead sea scrolls weren't found at that time, however as they were found with the apocrypha, there is no reason not fot it to be part of the bible as it is with the three most traditional churches the Coptic's, EO, and catholic
Luther didn't like those books. Convincing. And if Luther was a murderer and decided he didn't like the commandment about killing and removed it from his Bible, you would be OK with that?
@@nosuchthing8 I think you misread. Luther *DID* like the Apocrypha. He didn't consider them canonical in the same way as the other books of the OT, but he translated them into German, and published them in his bible. He said all Christians should read them.
@@MrSupdup Luther tossed them out of the Canon and he knew that would lead to them being removed from the bible of course. He wanted to get rid of corruption in the catholic church, so he threw the baby out with the bathwater when he removed the books that implied purgatory.
The first Protestant Bibles, certainly in English and German included the Apocrypha. It's a false argument. Most Christians don't read large parts of the Old Testament in any case. Include them in the Bible and let people read or study them if they have value. Martin Luther thought the Apocrypha were useful and good to read. He was right.
It was only a few years ago that I, as a Protestant, finally got around to reading the Apocrypha in a Catholic Bible. And while I feel comfortable in the Protestant reasons for not including it in the Bible, I do find a great deal to appreciate in it: - 1 & 2 Maccabees fill in that 400 year gap between Malachi and Matthew well, and help to explain the significance of Hanukkah and, indirectly, the origins of the Pharisees and other Jewish groups at the time of Jesus. - Do you enjoy Proverbs? Then you'll like pretty much all of Sirach. While it doesn't claim to be the voice of God on earth, it does contain very good advice and insight into the mind of the wise people around the time of the Maccabees. - Esther's additions are pretty neat, and do tend to add to the emotional weight of the story (though they do tend to make the focus of the book more on Mordecai, which is a shame) If you haven't read them before, but have read the rest of the Bible frequently, I encourage you to check the Apocrypha out.
It’s not a question of merely “including” them or not. It’s a question whether they are the infallible, Holy Spirit inspires words of God. Because if they are, the Protestants have committed arguably one of the greatest sins in the Bible. And as it stands, the Protestants are on the loosing end of this argument. Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Moses King Your argument cuts both ways. You may think they were removed, but protestants think they were added. Personally, as a protestant charismatic, I believe that they should be included. A better argument is that they should be included along with the version of the OT from the septuagint. The reason is that around 100AD the jews _who had rejected Jesus_ corrupted the Hebrew scripture to dilute the gospel message in it. This included removing the apocrypha.
@Chris how about if we take into account the history of christianity before our opinions on wether the books should be on the bible? This is not a XXI century issue. Early christians know better than the current generation, as apostles knew better than anyone could of Jesus.
Speaking of Wolves, there is a really interesting TED talk about when they removed all the wolves from an area in Yellowstone and it literally destroyed the ecology of the area until they re-introduced them.
A few thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Christian and former Protestant. 1st of all, We use those books too, which should automatically disprove the argument that Catholics never affirmed those books as scripture until the council of Trent because if they hadn't been scripture at the time of the Great Schism (the event where Catholics and Orthodox went their separate ways) which was in 1054 almost 500 years before Luther, they wouldn't be in our Bibles and yet they are. Further on this point the Oriental or Coptic Orthodox Church, which was isolated from the rest of the church for a very, very long time from quite early on until basically the modern Era, also uses them, in fact, they use an even older canon that has more books that we and Catholics have. 2. We need to understand what Trent was, the council of Trent was the RCC essentially trying to figure out which complaints (if any) being made by Protestants at the time, pointed to actual heresy within the Church, "is there anything we need to fix?" is basically what they were asking themselves, and the inclusion of the Apocrypha was deemed to be a non-issue and reaffirmed at Trent, as were many other things.
As a (Roman) Catholic, I concur with the fact that our Orthodox brethren's use of the Apocrypha is proof of the validity of the Councils of Nicea-Constantinople in the 4th century. Christ quoted the Apocrypha several times in his teachings, as well as in his corrections of the Jewish leaders. To claim that there never was a great approval of the Apocrypha, and only by local groups, shows ignorance of Church history. The Jewish leaders removed those books from their scriptures after 70 A.D. because the early Christians quoted these books so often in defense of Jesus as the Christ. To reject the Apocrypha is to deliberately escape the truths found in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches. Only these Churches can claim that Christ started their Church. (We need a permanent family reunion!) A better study of history is needed for the masses.
Hi Matt, Bill here. I saw your video about books that didn't make the cut in the Bible and also this video. I'm Catholic. I think you did a great job trying to fairly present our reasons for our views on the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha. I appreciate your openness to just sharing information without demonizing and labeling each other. I think it's important that we celebrate the common ground where God has revealed it to us, but to also enthusiastically embrace our differences as we all strive for truth. May God ultimately reveal his perfect will to us all. God bless, Bill in Tampa
I just love reading the comments on your videos Matt. It's really refreshing to see people discussing their different opinions rationally and respectfully. You really set the tone for civilized discussions in your videos. Thanks for making great content and keep up the good work.
i was thinking the same thing lol people always be mad cus they’re tryna prove they’re right but truth is different to everyone n it’s so beautiful to see people talk about and discuss it with kindness , respect and geniality:’)
I wanted to share that I love the book of Sirach. It is beautiful book written inspired by God. When I was recovering from 2 years of depression and an emotional breakdown, I read the book of Sirach multiple times. It help me find healing in God and Jesus. Thank you for making these videos.
The deuterocanon (apocrypha) doesn't actually come _between_ the Old and New Testaments for the most part. Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and Esther, then the remains or Esther get put back on, then fast forward to the end of Song of Solomon and you add the Book of Wisdom and Sirach before coming to Isaiah. Baruch goes between Lamentations and Ezekiel, then Daniel comes and you put the missing parts back in. The only parts that actually can be said to come between are the books of the Macabees, which are also the only ones that, in my opinion ought to be of any controversy at all between Catholics and Protestants. The rest fit right in with the whole with nary a ripple. Disclaimer: I'm an Anglican.
Incidentally, it isn't only the RCs who think the extra LXX books should be in there. So do the Eastern Orthodox, the other largest Christian group in Christian history.
Also, there's a _little_ appeal made to the Apocrypha in the NT. The most obvious and famous is the dispute over the body of Moses in the little epistle from Jude. That appears to be referencing the book of Enoch; but there are some midrash changes in Jude, so there isn't a direct quotation and the author might be making reference to another floating version of the story (or, if you prefer, providing an inspired correction for the details). Craig Evans, if I recall correctly, has a book somewhere on extra-canonical references in the NT, and he includes topical or thematic references to the Apocrypha along the way. If I was slightly less lazy I'd hop downstairs to the library and pull it out. {wry g}
+Jason Pratt Agreed, but again that's a reference to 1st Enoch (which isn't in the RC list), so doesn't really apply to the discussion about the Apocrypha. There's also a brief reference to something that could be construed as talking about the same stuff as 1st maccabees.
Actually nowadays according to surveys there are more Pentacostals than Eastern Orthodox Christians. True, they aren't a unified group, but Eastern Orthodoxy isn't 100% unified either (not in the same way Roman Catholicism is).
The EOx are significantly more unified than Pentacostals are, however. {g} Also, the studies I've seen on Pentacostal numbers have tended to conflate Pentacostal numbers with charismatic numbers (at least when those studies are run by Pentacostals!) About 25% of Christians worship in, or belong to, charismatic congregations or groups. (Including among the RC and EOx, who have special groups focusing on charismatic worship. Both branches would probably classify themselves as the original charismatics, too, the EOx perhaps moreso than the RCs.) Pentacostals per se constitute 4%, although I don't recall whether that's from the absolute estimated total of Christians or from the 25% charismatic. All Pentacostals are of course charismatic, but not all charismatics (by a lonnnng shot) are Pentacostals.
My King James Bible has a note in the back with the section describing the books of the Bible stating that the apocryphal books were included in the KJV until the 19th century. This led me to read them seriously. My husband and I both have read the books now and think it would be beneficial reading for any Christian although not mandatory to understanding Christianity.
Hey....I’m Catholic and LOVE your videos. Thanks to God for leading me to you. I have several versions of the Bible, not all Catholic. I’ve always considered these books to be sort of a “directors cut”. Interesting......good writing.....but didn’t quite move the story along like the other books. You will not go to hell by reading them I promise. Your video was excellent. Thank you for your thoughtful presentation of a subject that really does get some Christians worked up. God bless you and your work....I’m a fan!
You did a reasonably fair job laying out the Catholic point of view. Although, it wasn't Martin Luther that decided the deuterocanonical books were not canonical. It originally was sects of Jews that came to that conclusion around 80 AD. They believed that since the original texts of the deuterocanonical book were in Greek (and not in Hebrew) that they did not belong in the Canon. However, parts of Sirach and Tobit were found, in Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, there are references to the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. This should come as no surprise. The Septuagint, which contained the deuterocanonical books, was the Scripture used by the Apostles and by Jesus. You can see themes from Wisdom of Solomon in Matthews and Maccabees in Hebrews. We hear echoes of Sirach 27:6 in Christ's words (Mt 7:16,20). Hanukkah is celebrated by the Apostles and we find that in 2 Maccabees. Further, we cannot use a lack of quotations in the NT as evidence that the books are not canonical. That reasoning would preclude 8 OT books from the Canon. Lastly, there were councils in third and fourth centuries AD at Carthage and Hippo that confirmed the deuterocanonical books were canonical.
He failed to mention them not out of forgetfulness but ignorance. He flat-out says at 6:04 that there are "no references to the Apocrypha" in the New Testament. That's just patently false, and anyone who would make such a claim just clearly has never read the Deuteroncanonical books. Either that or he's being deceitful; I choose to be charitable and assume it's ignorance.
The most clear and vivid prophecy of Jesus is from the book of Wisdom. This is much more explicit than the prophet Isaiah as to what would happen to our Savior: Wisdom 2:12 Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
I know these are older videos, like 4 years ago older. I like that your just a street sign pointing one way or another and we can decide which road we want to take. What I really like is the sense that you make when you talk about anything in your videos. I just found these and am mesmerized. I have to keep watching them. I am going to bring one of your videos to our youth group and do a sit and watch, then ask and answer questions. You make very good points, but then you back off and leave it up to the viewer without any biased on your part to make the final decision. God bless what you do.
Just discovered your channel, but I've really been enjoying working my way through your videos. You've got a really graceful, yet uncompromising way of explaining things as clearly and as simply as possible and I just wanted to let you know that I think you're doing a great thing. I'll be praying for you and that God would use these videos to bring glory to Himself. Keep it up!
The Apocrypha is the Rogue One of the Bible. It's an interesting side story that explains an important part of history, but isn't part of the Skywalker saga, or in this case, the story of Jesus.
Jingkiftic Films, I am guessing you have not read the deuterocanonical books. I'm in the process of reading them, and so far, they are worthwhile and there isn't anything wrong about them.
Hi Matt, it's your mom, (specifically the Canadian one going to a Lutheran seminary) and I wanted to say great video as always. That being said, I feel like throwing some wrenches into your account. First, Luther never actually removed these books from the Bible, nor did the translators of the KJV, despite their reservations. They simply put them into a separate section. Second, Luther's immediate followers (the Lutherans, of course) never actually came down officially on the issue of canon. If you peruse the Book of Concord, you'll notice that at no time does it ever define the actual contents of the Bible. English bible publishers eventually dropped it in order to make bibles cheaper, and English speaking Lutherans have been using their bibles. Recently, Concordia Publishing House (the official publishing house of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) has even published a study apocrypha, with devotional material and study notes. Meanwhile, Anglicans continue to use the apocrypha in their lectionaries. Yours in Christ, Daniel P.S. Will you do a video on books that actually almost made it into the Bible, like the Shepherd of Hermas?
To be clear, I don't think Luther removed anything from the Bible, nor do I think it would matter if he did. Luther is important, but in Protestant theology, he's still just some guy. In the segment where I was talking about that I was quoting Catholic friends and articles on the subject.
As a former LCMSer and one who had Confessional leanings, I had no idea that the Book of Concord or the early Lutherans never officially decided anything regarding the Deuteros. Thanks!
When the student is ready😊...Evidently i come from a different part of the vine but am so grateful for your endeavours. Thank you so much for the series of videos, engaging intelligent and balanced. To echo another commentator, your mom must be pretty proud! God bless you and continue to guide you in this informative and encouraging work.
First off, solid video. I’m learning a huge amount of biblical history from you. Second, whaaaat prompted the GoT font with ‘80s workout themes? I love it.
As a Catholic I really appreciate your representation of what we believe about the Canon of Scripture. I am a fan of your channel and I think you are doing such a needed thing for the evangelization of this de- Christianized culture. "So 4 for you glen coco you go glen coco!" With that said, your first point about the Gospels or the New Testament books never mentioning the apocryphal (to us the deuterocanonical) books is at most false, and at the very least highly debatable. If you google "deuterocanonical references in the New Testament," Jimmy Akin gives a very balanced perspective of the matter on how we can decipher a reference or not. But then he gives a list of mentions in each Gospel that we can reasonably believe are direct references. I found it very helpful. I hope you do too! Thank you for what you do! Your ministry and family remain in my prayers!
Thank you for making this! It's something I'm trying to get to the bottom of right now. I still have more questions, but your video is still very helpful
Thanks for this presentation. I grew up Protestant and became Catholic in 1994. The best argument I’ve heard on the Catholic side is that you can’t fully understand the book of John without reading the book of Wisdom.
I’m tentatively returning to the Catholic faith after running from it for the last 30 years give or take. Your channel is very refreshing! I think if we had one religion enforced upon us we would eventually just stop asking any questions and we all know where that can lead. Debate and discussion is healthy, it’s how humanity learns and progresses. Thank you 🙏🏼
Hooray! You did not disappoint, Matt. Thanks for your careful handling of the topic. I really appreciate your humble yet uncompromising approach. This helps. Like, a lot.
Thanks for the video! I want to point out that Protestantism, historically, never outright rejected the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon (the latter is a better name for it). As Anglicans, we hold to it being a secondary Canon that is not on par with the rest of Scripture, but is still important to read and study. Lutherans have a similar, though not as strong, position. Recall that the King James Bible did translate the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. Most Bibles printed had the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon in them until the 1800's. It's largely Evangelicals who utterly reject it.
Luther's German bible also included the Apocrypha, it's just that he was the first to place them in their own section labeled "Apocrypha." Luther used Jerome's prologue to the Vulgate as a justification for this.
I agree that’s a far better name for it as apocrypha assumes it is heretical (another definition of Apocrypha besides simply being not canon is not genuine). There are apocrypha books (ones added to the 27 New Testament one) but 7 deuterocanical books are not part of that.
Matt: "I think this is one of those points where we can respectfully disagree and get a long just fine." Ominous glow of fire in the distance: "BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!"
Just started watching your channel and I’m impressed. I appreciate your open attitude and fair stance when discussing topics that have divided. Full disclosure, I’m Catholic, so I do have a couple questions on how you arrived at your conclusion. In your video “Who picked what books went into the bible?” you said that the council of Carthage affirmed the already existing canon. This canon included the books of the apocrypha (yes, I paused for the bonus content). So if the church agreed on the apocrypha as being canon how do you get from that to this video that says they aren’t canon? Yeah, Jerome may have disagreed that they were canon but didn't he assent to the Church’s consensus and authority and accept them in the end? You also say the apocrypha wasn’t referenced in the New Testament but there are places online that do list references. Lastly, just to comment on you saying that the Apocrypha wasn’t publicly confirmed at a council of the entire church again goes against what you said in the previous video regarding the council of Carthage. In light of that and other council that confirmed it as canon why would a council need to affirm it again if everyone is using it as canon already? It’s not until people, like Luther, who didn’t have the authority to arbitrarily remove canonical books but does that a council must be convened by the Church to affirm for the last time what is canon. Regardless, very interesting video!
Catholic convert from Protestantism here. Thanks for trying to be objective and fair as most people are not. A few things to understand about your comments, though. You left out the Eastern Churches who also consider those books as scripture. So all of Christendom accepted them for 1500 years prior to Luther. Yes, Jerome and others bickered about them because they were in Greek and it did not go over well in dialogues with Jews...but they were always scripture, read at Mass, etc. And it's not true that they dont point to Jesus. I can tell you have never read them. Read Wisdom chapter 2 and tell me who the author is prophesying? Clearly it's Jesus. If you continue studying the history you will ultimately end up Catholic or Orthodox. Just a friendly warning lol
nowitznes41 Your friendly warning is true. 2 years ago, I did deep delving in the history of the church as a nice little nondemoninational charismatic. Fast forward to now, and I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox church lol
Yep, that’s what happened to me...read the Fathers, Study history...false premises collapse...realize that my whole point of reference has changed...I am alien in my Protestant circles (though there is much of my understanding and heritage that finds more expression and completeness)... now I am Eastern Orthodox. ;)
@@Christian-ut2sp Catholic don't pray to MARY. Catholics ask for Mary's intercession just as they do ask for the intercession of any other saint in the family of God. The rosary prayer speaks for itself. Nowhere in the Hail Mary prayer that there is evidence Catholics are praying to Mary but rather evident we are asking for her intercession. The next question will be, why do you ask for the intercession of Mary when Jesus is the only Mediator to God? Now, I ask the question, why do you ask for the prayer/intercession of your pastor and fellow Christian when Jesus is the only Mediator? If you can do that, what makes it wrong to ask the same family member -Mary to pray for us? (Ephesians 3:14)
Gutenberg printed the first book ever in 1455. Way before the Protestant Reformation. What book did he print? a 73 book Latin Bible. Martin Luther and followers took out the 7 books and parts of Daniel and Esther.
I really appreciate the care you take to explore both sides of the issue and your ehipassiko approach to Christian theology. Apparently you've got great taste in music too.
Protestants also wanted James and Revelation included in the *Apocrypha. They couldn't effectively protest those as they were already over their head in heresies to the point they were losing the followers they gained thru protest. "Protestant: is literally to protest, in this case protesting the Church of the Apostles instituted by Christ himself.
Orthodox Christianity has always had these books, as well as a few more the Roman Catholics don’t have (3 & 4 Maccabees, Epistle of Jeremiah), and the Prayer of Manasseh that goes with 2 Esdras (Ezra), Additions to Esther, as well as an alternate numbering of the Psalms. I assume that’s because Orthodoxy adheres to the Septuagint Greek and not the Vulgate. In any case, this is such an informative video and many thanks for posting it!
I would like to acknowledge Roochka and Momera for their contributions. It's not just Catholics who have these books. It's the Orthodox as well. In the West, when these debates are happening, people often forget the Orthodox even exist.
I am Catholic and I agree to that. Maybe Protestants only focus on the Catholic side because that's the very faith they are "protesting" to so unconsciously they have become so fixated to "debunking" Catholic teachings.
I’m quoting from Jason Evert here: Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired? Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books-such as the Song of Songs-that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired. Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.
berrywellpictures you’re examination of Hebrews 11:35 is grossly incorrect. “Women received back their dead by resurrection.” for example...Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), and Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37). And “rise again to a better life” is literally, “obtain a better resurrection,” a final one, to eternal life.
@The Scooter both of you have valid points actually, but @berrywellpictures is correct. Verse 35 is referring to two different groups of people. The first half of verse 35 does indeed refer to Elijah and Elisha. However, “some were tortured and would not accept deliverance...” is referring to the Maccabean martyrs.
This video is much appreciated. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I will more or less agree with your summation of why Catholics hold on to the Deteurocanonicals even though it is more nuanced than that. But hey, at least you tried to be fair, thanks. I see you have a great library, did you by any chance read Gary Michuta on this very topic? Forexample, "Why Catholic Bible is bigger?" Or "The Case for the Deteurocanonics"? If yes, I'd appreciate to hear your honest review of those book length treatments on this subject. Peace be with you!
Thanks for being very fair in the video! I would like to point out (along with the NT parallels to the various books in the deuterocanon--three good examples: 2 Maccabees 6-7 and Hebrews 11:35, or Sirach 7.33-34 and Romans 12.15, or the many parallels between Wisdom and Romans [Google it--lot of interesting arguments about it--and there are actually many more of those, where the NT is clearly drawing from the text of one of the books, but just not directly saying, "As it is written in XYZ"]) that we see many things about the Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom in the deuterocanon. (It was actually the main reason I started believing in their inspiration as a Methodist: they, just like the rest of the OT, point to Jesus.) --Wisdom 2 (most clearly vs. 12-20) very clearly talks about the betrayal and execution of the Just Man (the Crucifixion of Jesus--especially compare v 17-18 and Matthew 27.42-43) --Tobit 13 (a hymn in the narrative) talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God, saying, "Acknowledge the Lord, for he is good, and bless the King of the ages, so that his tent may be rebuilt in you in joy. [That is, the Tabernacle/the Temple would be rebuilt among the people--cf. John 1:14, 2:13-22]...A bright light will shine to all the ends of the earth; many nations will come to you from far away, the inhabitants of the remotest parts of the earth to your holy name, bearing gifts in their hands for the King of heaven. [that is, both Jesus, being the Light of the World, drawing all people to Himself; and the light of the star shining in the East, which literally drew the Magi to bear gifts for the King of Heaven]" (13.10,11) --Tobit 14: "God will again have mercy on [the Exiles], and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come [the Temple would be rebuilt, as it was under Ezra/Nehemiah, but the full glorious Temple, Jesus would come in the fullness of time]. After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it. Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth. They will all abandon their idols, which deceitfully have led them into their error; and in righteousness they will praise the eternal God. [When Jesus did establish the New Temple through the Sacrifice of His Body, this literally happened--within about 300 years, the Gospel was preached throughout the Roman Empire, south into Ethiopia, as far east as India and China. People literally abandoned pagan idolatry to "in righteousness" "praise the eternal God"]" (14.5-7) --And the overarching narrative of the fiction story Tobit mirrors/prefigures the mission of Jesus in a typological way: the only son of his father, goes on a journey eventually to find a bride. He, by the help of an angel, delivers his bride from the power of a demon. His father in law expects him to die in the night, so he has his servants dig a grave. But to his surprise and joy, the son is alive--leaving an empty grave and consummating the marriage. He, his wife, and the angel return to his father, he saves him from blindness, and then the angel ascends into heaven. --the overarching story of Judith (an allegorical retelling of the story of the Maccabean revolt with the image of Judith [feminine form of Jew/Judah] as Israel) mirrors/prefigures Mary's role in our redemption. Like a few other OT women (Jael in Judges; the woman who crushes Abimelech's head with a millstone; Esther, through whose intercession/intervention Haman is hung/impaled through the head), Judith prefigures the fulfillment of the Prophecy in Genesis 3: that a Woman and her Seed (Zerah, Sperma, Semina--offspring, the only time that word is ever used belonging to a woman, as men are the ones with "seed"--a virgin birth) would crush/strike at the head of the serpent and his seed (the devil and death/sin). Over and over again, like those other OT women, it emphasizes that God, "by the hand of a woman" has "cut off the head of the leader of our enemies." (cf. 9, 13, 14) Elizabeth's praise of Mary in Luke 1 (along with mirroring the description of the Ark of the Covenant being moved around in 2 Samuel 6) mirrors the praises given to Judith: "O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all other women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to cut off the head of the leader of our enemies. Your praise will never depart from the hearts of those who remember the power of God." (Judith 13.18-19) --Sirach 48, in the big celebration of the heroes of the OT, talks about Elijah's return before the Messiah. --Sirach 36 is a prayer for God to reveal His power to His people/the world again--asking Him to hasten the coming of the Messiah. Among the other important things he prays for in relation to that: "Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn, Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. Fill Zion with your majesty, and your temple with your glory. Bear witness to those whom you created in the beginning, and fulfill the prophecies spoken in your name. Reward those who wait for you and let your prophets be found trustworthy." (17-21--the whole prayer is definitely worth looking up) --Both Sirach 51 and 6 have descriptions of God's Wisdom which sound..."familiar": "Draw near to me, you who are uneducated, and lodge in the house of instruction. Why do you say you are lacking in these things, and why do you endure such great thirst? I opened my mouth and said, Acquire wisdom for yourselves without money. Put your neck under [Wisdom's] yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by. See with your own eyes that I have labored but little and found for myself much serenity." (51.23-27) --Baruch 3.9-4.4 is another Wisdom poem. But this one has a really crazy thing right near the end: "This is our God; no other can be compared to him. He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved. Afterward [Wisdom] appeared on earth and lived with humankind." (Baruch 3.35-37) Wisdom was to become a man, to appear among us and live with us. --Baruch 4.5-5.9 is all about return from Exile, that God will come to you, "Take courage, my children, cry to God, and he will deliver you from the power and hand of the enemy. For I have put my hope in the Everlasting to save you, and joy has come to me from the Holy One, because of the mercy that will soon come to you from your Everlasting Savior." (4.21-22) God will come to you as your savior, and "Arise, O Jerusalem, stand upon the height; look toward the east, and see your children gathered from west and east at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing that God has remembered them...For God has ordered that every high mountain and the everlasting hills be made low and the valleys filled up, to make level ground, so that Israel may walk safely in the glory of God. The woods and every fragrant tree have shaded Israel at God’s command. For God will lead Israel with joy, in the light of his glory, with the mercy and righteousness that come from him." (5.5, 7-9) Again, like in Tobit, Sirach, etc., God will gather all people back together. God will lead Israel, He will be the King. --There is not a ton in the two Historical Books (1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees--which is to be expected: not a ton of Messianic Prophecy in Ezra or Nehemiah either), but even in them there are a few things: 2 Maccabees 2, it gives an account of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant: Jeremiah took it and hid it right before the destruction of Jerusalem. He stops those who were trying to mark out where he hid them: "The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated." (2 Maccabees 2.7-8) And it did. "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev. 11.19-12.1) And "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you [phrasing exactly like the Presence of God overshadowing the Ark]; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God." and "And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?" (Luke 1.35,43, cf. 2 Samuel 6.9). The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, far from merely being minor supplemental material about Jewish opinions and thoughts around the time of Jesus, have plenty to say about Who Jesus is/what His kingdom would look like. Otherwise, again, thanks for a well presented video!
@@paolaandreaq both. Obedience to God through obedience to the men he put in charge. Everyone who went against the doctrines and traditions taught by the apostles was considered heretical in the bible. Everyone who went against the doctrines and traditions passed down from them by people like Titus and Timothy went against the authority passed to them by the apostles. Timothy and Titus were instructed to also ordain good men with the authority they had gotten from the apostles. Disobeying any of those people would be to disobey God. "They who hear you, hear me"
@@shananotz9920 interesting. I just draw the line when men stand for anything against the Bible and its principles. So, there goes most religious institutions.
The Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents. The only way you can know what is in the Bible has to be based on the apostolic authority of those who put it together. It must also be read and understood within that same understanding that the church fathers had when they first compiled these books into the New and Old Testaments in the 4th century.
I came across this video today. After reading some of the comments, I will second Aaron Barr's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th points (not that is other points are not valid). YES, the New Testament quotes deuterocanon books! In abundance. The presentation that it does not is simply incorrect.
After watching the video and reading through a few comments I have just one point. If the Catholic church got it wrong in reference to the Apocrypha, Then what makes you think they got the rest of the Bible right?
As far as I can make out, Jews attempting to undermine the spread of Christianity, unlike the Church itself, had a handle on which parts of the Old Testament contain the really good Jesus-y stuff, and decided to preserve only those parts. Go figure.
With respect to sacred Scripture, the Apocrypha are those religious books written in the Old and New Testaments eras that claimed a sacred origin but were ultimately judged by the Catholic Church as NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit. These apocryphal books were thus excluded from the canon of Scripture, and yet in many cases retain some religious value. Our Protestant brothers and sisters mistakenly place the deuterocanonicals (seven Old Testament books) in this category. for more on the apocryphal books, see this article from The Catholic Encyclopedia. (taken from Catholic.com)
these are really interesting videos Matt. I like the fact that you make it a point to balance the different perspectives. You remain respectful of what each people believe and follow. God bless you and I hope God continues to guide you in making these amazing content. Sincerely, Not Your Mom ^_^ (but someone from Southeast Asia).
this was very good. thanks for reviewing this subject. i have learned a lot from "the ten minute bible hour". i am a catholic but your teachings do help me. the fact that the orthodox church agree with catholics again, helps the catholics on this issue. but not a big deal.
I love how you do not force an opinion on others about the topic and tell both sides to the best of your ability. This is really refreshing due to the abundance of bashing and debating on both sides of the argument.
Couple things: The disagreement about whether a bunch of books called the Apocrypha should be included between the Testaments is essentially one between different groups of Protestants. For Catholics, and the Orthodox (with their longer Canon) these books, or parts of books, are very much part of the Old Testament. Comments from here on will focus on the Catholic Deuterocanon as this is the one you addressed. Your characterisation of both the content of these books also seems far too focused on 1st and 2nd Maccabees, with only a passing reference to the other books which are largely considered Wisdom Liturature or sometimes Biblical Novellas. Coming to the heart of the matter, I think you understated the arguements for inclusion, and overstated those against. I will only focus on a few points. With regards to the point concerning the lack of quotes from these books in the New Testament, you apply a standard which would see a dramatic shortening of the part of the Old Testament we all agree on, as there are several books not referred to in any way in the New Testament which are universally accepted as Canonical. This list shortens when one includes allusions, but the New Testament also includes a handful of allusions to the Deuterocanon. Equally this whole manner of determining cannonicity brings other problems, as both the Old Testament and New Testament quote from or allude to loads of non-Biblical books. Your mention of Jerome is also a little unbalanced, as brining him up without mentioning that he very much held a minority view may mislead your viewers. Your description of why he did include the Deuterocanon in the end is also wonky. Jerome didn't do so out of his view that they were edifying, but essentially out of acknowledgment of the Authority of the Church to determine the Canon and deference to this. It should also be noted that highlighting the debated status of the Deuterocanon in the Early Church is misleading if done in isolation, as other books, particularly in the New Testament, were far, far more heavily debated. It is also important to note that the idea of a straight up and down in or out Canon, within which everything is fully inspired and beyond which nothing is was a very gradual development in the Early Church, particularly in the East this understanding was not popular until defined at councils and insisted upon by Rome. These last two points bring me to my last, which regards the lack of a universal definition of the Canonicity of the Deuterocanon at an Ecumenical Council. This ties to the common misconception about the how's and whys of such Councils and definitions, which in reality only dealt with matters of great controversy. In general, Councils were only called, and doctrines defined, where debate on some part of Church teaching was widespread and controversial. The lack of an Ecumenical and binding definition on these books actually highlights how firm, and by the 5th Century how universal, acceptance of them actually was. These books never warranted the same kind of binding declarations that were made on other matters because the view that they were not Canonical was simply never held by anything more than a small minority.
Armchair theologian perspective: I think it would be good to rely on 2 Peter 1:20 for some perspective on interpretation of the Bible. Interpretation is not a personal matter; what I mean by employing this is that we as individuals do not carry the authority to interpret what books should/should not be in the Bible. It is the Church, the Body of Christ, who has the authority if she is really guided by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether or not some denominations reject the 2-fold nature of revelation (Scripture and Tradition), the canon of Scripture is indeed a matter of tradition. Scripture does not contain its own criteria for evaluating what books should/should not be in the canon. The Church has always been the agent in determining this. Just food for thought.
I find it a real blessing to have 'literally' stumbled onto your RU-vid channel. I wonder if you might have any opinions pertaining to the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essene community, and how (and if) they lend any context to the historical background within which Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine?
Mostly debate hunting Grizzly's here in Montana! I've been studying this topic for my men's bible study. I very much appreciate your videos and insight. Thank you for putting these videos together.
OK, I understand that almost half of Christendom omits the Deuterocanonical Books. Let's just jump over that for a second and zoom into the books we all agree on. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Luther, Tyndall and Coverdale would choose to omit over 66 verses of chapter three of Daniel. I've been seeking the answer to this puzzle all day. Why would they object to the prayer of Azariah aka Abednago. To me, reading it points directly to the pre-incarnate Christ as seen in 3:49-50 "But the angel of the Lord went down into the furnace with Azariah and his companions, drove the fiery flames out of the furnace and made the inside of the furnace s though a dew-laden breeze were blowing". Now I do see reference to angels, powers, Spirits and Souls of the just being instructed to praise the Lord and I know some of the Reformers took issue with the concept of the communion of saints (the idea that the saints in heaven are perfectly aware of what is happening on earth). Perhaps this is why they wanted to cut that section, but really, for me I can't see anything that would bar it from being "God Breathed" especially when it's right in the middle of the story - obviously it was cut out. I can see why Jews who wanted to stem the tide of conversion to Christianity would want to remove those sections, but I honestly can't see why a Christian would.
The best part of this is that the Angel of the Lord is Pre-Incarnate Jesus. It has nothing to do with the Communion of the Saints, which can be proven in certain parts of Jeremiah and Revelation, but this just attests to Christ’s faithfulness and saving grace. It is a wonder it was removed.
I’ve been trying to figure this out (whether the apocrypha is biblical or not), and you honestly cleared so many things up! Thank you and God bless you!
God's Kingdom Servant It is probably symbolic of time served in the navy. Of course I am not Thijs Douwes so I cannot speak for him but that would be my first guess. It seems symbolic of God, Country and Family, but who am I to determine that?
Yeah, the debate is not between Romans and Protestants. It is between SOME Protestants (not including Lutero and most reformists) and the Christians (Catholic Apostolic, including Romans but also including ALL Orthodox)
With all due respect that was a fairly weak argument (or set of arguments). The notion that somehow it is a separate work isn't accurate. It is a sort of third section/segment because for the first couple of hundred years it was in the Protestant Bible as a separate section. Martin Luther removed it from his German Bible but King James had the book in his version. Let's explore further the historic use. There are four communions which trace their history back to the twelve Apostles (thus Jesus personally). Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Ancient Church of the East. All of these communions take their canon from the Septuagint which includes the books rejected by Protestants. They have been Christian scripture since even before there was a "New Testament". A part of the reasoning Protestants used to reject the Septuagint was because Judaism doesn't canonize it. Ironically Judaism doesn't canonize it because it isn't Jewish enough. If one believes in the Council of Jamnia hypothesis (which doesn't appear to hold water anyway) the same council which rejected the Septuagint was when Judaism defined Christianity as heretical. The idea that Jesus doesn't reference those specific parts of scripture is a rabbit hole that puts in question far more of the Old Testament. Jesus isn't reported to quote a great deal of scripture in the first place. Of perhaps greatest interest to me is-where did Protestants get the authority to remove these books from the canon of scripture? All of Christendom recognized this as part of the canon of the bible for the first millennium and a half of it's history. I require convincing that Protestants can justify removing it.
Thanks for the video. Orthodox church accepts these books and the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible even includes Book of Henoch and other additional writings. Maybe it would be worth digging out. Every blessing!
I definitely dig the Apocrypha, especially Enoch, which does point to YeShua! "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: *This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,* With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever." -XLVI. The Head of Days and the Son of Man. translation by R. H. Charles Qumran Cave Scrolls (Cave 11); Aramaic Enoch Scroll would also point to the continued narrative of the OT into the NT, and a pre-christian prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, the Son of Man. I feel that personally the Apocrypha is good food for thought, it's potentially historical value of interest, and something like Enoch to be Deuterocanonical; if not an oral and wide spread tradition as is stated to the effect of itself in the Book of Enoch, that was later transcribed down as the rest of the OT. But we can all agree to disagree, and know that our maxim is where we are with God, that He is, He was, and will be, Christ Crucified and Resurrected in Him, Jesus our LORD, of the Father, and the Spirit; all in all God.
As a mother we always love our children and rightfully so but we should make absolutely sure that they are taught and know the truth. I'm not trying to convert anybody to Catholicism I'm not trying to say it is the only true religion or any of that kind of nonsense I think any time we can come together to celebrate I would like we are as opposed to how different it is Christ at work. However when you speak a complete untruth you need to own up to it. There were several here that were not true Matt's mom. Jerome did not deny the books he argued with the guy that was arguing with him. Luther did not deny them later on his deathbed and late in his life. Even though he was instrumental in removing them. The original Bible had them in there! That's a reality that is factual. The fact also remains that they most assuredly did talk about Christ and Matt said they did not and that is a lie. Matt also said they were never a reference by Jesus, two things about that many books of the Old Testament were never mentioned by Jesus however part of Tobit and Zechariah were mentioned by Jesus himself. Peter mentioned them Paul mention them and the Book of Revelations referred to them. A lesson in history will not and should not hurt your faith and it shouldn't change your denomination Matt and that's not what I'm trying to do I'm trying 2 explain that no defense is needed 4 inclusion of the apocryphal books. And I wish you would also call them by their real name not the Apocrypha and I'm not going to tell you what that is I'm going to let you do a little more research and maybe make another video after you have educated yourself. That sounds snotty but I don't mean it that way
I'll relate it to this, when I used to buy DVD movies I always enjoyed the bonus extras like commentaries and bloopers. So I think if it doesn't really hurt the entire structure of the Bible nor does it contradict it there is no problem with keeping the books.
The same Church that gave you the New Testament is the one that included the Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books. All 73 books, therefore, are the Word of God. God bless.
The "apocryphal books" weren't summarily taken out by the reformation immediately, in fact they were are part of all protestant bibles printed in America until the late 19th century when they began to be printed without them. Also, Catholics aren't the only ones who hold to the Apacrypha; in fact they themselves shortened the original Canonical book list. The Orthodox still use the longer canon. Also, the septuigent isn't just the version that was around durring Jesus' day, but was in fact the text that the Apostles quoted from when writing the Gospels and NT, the version used in the synygogous which Jesus and the Apostles read from and taught from often. There was a lot of info left out of this analysis. I'd love to see a longer more in-depth look at this topic.
A few respectful disagreements: 1 - It's important to point out that while Luther's Bible & the KJV did include the deuterocanon, they did not include them within the OT but as a separate 'apocrypha' meaning that while considered instructive, they weren't considered bona-fide, inspired Scripture. This is in contrast to over 1,000 years of Church History to that point which did via councils such as at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the late 300s, and early 400s, not to mention the Council of Florence in the early 1400s. 2 - The difference in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons doesn't stem from Rome cutting books as much as the emergence of different liturgies that developed between East and West.
I'm no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but I think their stance on the apocrypha/deuterocanon lies somewhere between the Protestant and Catholic stances. Like the Catholics, they have the 7 books of the Catholic deuterocanon and * *then some.* But unlike Catholics, they do not believe these books to have equal authority as the rest of the Bible. Rather, they consider these books to be "readable" but they don't dictate doctrine and they're not read in Church services. * For those of you who are curious, the orthodox apocrypha/deuterocanon differs greatly from region to region, but the Greek and Slavonic churches (which account for the majority of the orthodox christians) have 3 more books. 1. *Greek Esdras* - It is virtually the same as Hebrew Ezra, with some exceptions. Greeks call it *Esdras A',* while the Slavonic churches call it *2 Esdras.* I'm not even going to get into all the naming conventions for this and all other apocryphal books of Esdras, because it's enough to make a grown man cry, and there's already an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras#Naming_conventions 2. *3rd Maccabees* which *actually* takes place a few decades before the events of 1+2 Maccabees while the Jews were still under the Ptolemaic rule of Greco-Egypt in the 200s BC 3. *Odes* - this one is interesting because it is strictly quotes from other books of the Bible, and therefore not considered additional content. The 15 chapters that make up Odes are prayers from elsewhere in the Bible. So strictly speaking, if we don't count Greek Esdras and Odes as being entirely new, additional content, then all that separates a Catholic Bible from a Greek/Slavonic Bible is *3 Maccabees.* *edit:* They also have Prayer of Manasseh appended to either Chronicles or Odes, and I think they might have Psalm 151
10:18 "I can think of a four letter word to describe what kind of religion that is..." *Me, counting with my fingers because of course* "But...Islam has five letters..."
If I remember correctly, the New Testament does reference a part of Maccabees talking about a mother whose sons were tortured. Anyone know what I’m talking about?
Hebrews 11:35, 35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. Quoting 2 Maccabees 7
As a Catholic, I believe that Jesus Christ recognized these books, which non-Catholics frequently call "Apocrypha," because He frequently quoted from the Old Testament version which contained them. At Jesus's time there were two versions of the Old Testament, the one in Greek, containing these seven books, and the other in Hebrew not containing them. Out of the 350 quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament, 300 are taken from the Greek version which the Catholic Church uses and about 50 from both the Greek and the Hebrew version. Non Catholics are not consistent in rejecting this Greek version as uninspired, because the same authority, on which they believed any of the books to be the Word of God, also declared these seven having been inspired by God.
A few disparate thoughts: Jesus quoted from the Septuagint in the New Testament. It was 1500 years before the scriptures were edited by man. The first KJV included all 73 books.
Well no... actually the KJV translators were forced pretty much to include them and even put them seperate to the protestant 66 books in a section called Apocrypha and considered it not inspired also they were there for historical purposes sorta like the epistle dedicatory or something they're history books about the maccabean revolt really but obviously biased history books and stories
Δαβίδ δρόμος forced by who? Not by the Roman Catholics. BTW That’s the kind of thing that can happen when your Bible is named after a king and is written to an agenda.
@@convert2islaam500 please note that the monarchs of England thiught they had the right to do anything they wanted to the bible because the king or queen was head of the Anglican church. This why King Henry the eighth changed the words of the Lords prayer, he gave himself the authority to do this. Of course the whole reason he created jhis Protestant church was so he could divorce his wife snd marry his mistress.
@@hulsfamcalcan well actually it wasn't originally named after the long maybe do some basic research first dude that's a name people assigned to it after way after originally it was just called the bible or the authorized version
@@Klee99zeno yes that's why the Anglican church was created with King Henry but to suggest that King James somehow changed the bible because he was king is false there's no evidence of this and the Kings did have limits technically if you actually think they wouldn't kill the king if he did something too far Idk man I'm not sure what I can say that's not exactly historically accurate since they killed many Kings and some Roman Catholics tried to kill King James but failed (this was one year after the translation process began for the authorized version[KJV]) on the 5th of November 1605 it's called the "gunpowder plot" whether you believe KJV onlyism or not is ultimately up to you but to suggest the KJV isn't a good faithful and accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures into the english tongue is false and not even prominent "scholars" who attack KJV onlyism would agree for example James White he said it's a great translation and yes I've read his book "the king james only controversy" obviously I'm not convinced but he does say it's a good translation atleast.
