# The Reformers Position on the Apocrypha???



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

OK, I have read parts of the Apocrypha from time to time, I have an AV with the Apocrypha between the OT and NT and I have an RSV edition as well. My question is this, what were the various stances and opinions among the leaders of the Reformation in regard to these Documents? I think Luther (at least at one point) felt they were instructive from a moral perspective. (For those who view Luther as a "Proto-Reformer" then fast forward to Calvin. I as a new Presbyterian have never looked into what Calvin and Knox and the other Reformation leaders had to say in this regard. As a former Anglican, the Anglicans deny that it bears the Authority of true Scripture and recognize only the 66 Books of the OT and NT:but many felt (and still feel) they carry some value in terms of having some good moral and ethical teaching as well as having some value as Historical documents. What say ye?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 14, 2008)

I believe that this could be called a Protestant consensus:

*Belgic Confession*, Article 6



> We distinguish those sacred books (ed. the Protestant canon) from the apocryphal, viz: the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, the Appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two books of the Maccabees. _All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books_; but they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the other, that is, the sacred books.


 (emphasis mine)


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> *Belgic Confession* Article 6
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Daniel. So was the reading of the Apocrypha encouraged, within the context you noted?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 14, 2008)

*39 Articles of Religion*, Article 6



> And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine


----------



## Poimen (Apr 14, 2008)

etexas said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > *Belgic Confession* Article 6
> ...



Not necessarily. Guido de Bres and the other Reformers broke with Rome over the authority of these books and thus he notes that the Church "_may_ read and take instruction from" but in no way encourages reading them. 

To the best of my knowledge, then, they never would have been read in the context of a worship service or any official, ecclesiastical function.


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...


I looked (but did not find any) statements by Calvin on the Apocrypha, do you have any reference or quotes by him in regard to these documents?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 14, 2008)

In his commentary on the Acts of the Council of Trent:



> I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> In his commentary on the Acts of the Council of Trent:
> 
> 
> 
> > I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?


So, to clarify in my mind: Calvin would not "object" to perhaps privately reading the Apocrypha so long as it was within this context?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 14, 2008)

No he wouldn't (anymore than reading the many 'secular' books that made up his humanist education before he was converted).


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> No he wouldn't (anymore than reading the many 'secular' books that made up his humanist education before he was converted).


Thank you Brother. Like I say, I "enjoy" reading the Apocrypha in the sense that I "value" these documents as very interesting insight into inter-Testament thinking and writing.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 14, 2008)

First, it is important to understand that the Apocrapha only exists in the Greek Old Testament contained within the Alexandrian textual base, and of course, the Latin Vulgate. It does not and has never existed in the Hebrew. So, the argument concerning it's canonicity is of course doctrinal, but then also explicitly denied because it was never part of the Hebrew Canon. Hence, the major doctrinal issue of the Reformers concerning the Apocrapha arises after its canonization at the Council of Trent - something the Apocrapha had never enjoyed in the history of the Church.

Following Trent, then, Calvin argues that Rome merely provides itself with new support for its doctrinal errors and abuses by bestowing full authority on the Apocrypha:

“Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. From whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them an authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors.” Calvin, Antidote, in Tracts and Treatises III p 70

This fuller quote I think provides a better understanding of Calvin's position.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 14, 2008)

From a previous related thread, Edward Hills notes:



> Luther rejected 1 and 2 Esdras, and placed the other apocryphal books in an appendix at the close of the Old Testament, prefacing it with the statement: "Apocrypha—that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."



http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/augustine-apocrypha-29910/


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> ]
> 
> Not necessarily. Guido de Bres and the other Reformers broke with Rome over the authority of these books and thus he notes that the Church "_may_ read and take instruction from" but in no way encourages reading them.



Okay, how's this for a curve ball: the first edition of the Belgic Confession included at least one reference to an Apocryphal book in the proof texts. Article 37 had a reference to Wisdom 5. In his other writings, De Bres also appeals to the Apocrypha.


----------



## Coram Deo (Apr 14, 2008)

Guido Brother, or Puritanboard Librarian  , or Anybody else, 


Could you give the sentence in Article 37 that was used with the proof text Wisdom Chapter 5?

Also, Could you list some of De Bres other works that he appealed to the Apocrypha?


Thanks





Guido's Brother said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 14, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> Could you give the sentence in Article 37 that was used with the proof text Wisdom Chapter 5?
> 
> Also, Could you list some of De Bres other works that he appealed to the Apocrypha?



I don't have a facsimile of the first edition on hand, but even if I did, I don't think the proof-texts are directly connected to any of the sentences. The publisher simply inserted them in the margin wherever there was room. And in the critical edition (Bakhuizen van den Brink) that I'm using, they're simply all lumped together at the bottom of the article.

I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure that he does so in his debates with the Romanists while he was in prison. I'll have to look later when I have more time. It would be in Procedures Held With Regard To Those of the Religion of the Netherlands -- which is a hard-to-find translation of a book from 1568. 

He does mention 2 Maccabees 12 in Le Baston de La Foy Chrestienne, but there he's not appealing to it, but dealing with it in the context of the Romanist doctrine of purgatory. Then he provides quotes from Gregory and Jerome to prove their apocryphal, non-canonical status.


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> First, it is important to understand that the Apocrapha only exists in the Greek Old Testament contained within the Alexandrian textual base, and of course, the Latin Vulgate. It does not and has never existed in the Hebrew. So, the argument concerning it's canonicity is of course doctrinal, but then also explicitly denied because it was never part of the Hebrew Canon. Hence, the major doctrinal issue of the Reformers concerning the Apocrapha arises after its canonization at the Council of Trent - something the Apocrapha had never enjoyed in the history of the Church.
> 
> Following Trent, then, Calvin argues that Rome merely provides itself with new support for its doctrinal errors and abuses by bestowing full authority on the Apocrypha:
> 
> ...


I am curious as to the status of the Apocrypha prior to Trent? The RCC did not write the Apocrypha (and as stated above when it was elevated as Canon it was for the purpose of "proof-texting" certain passages to support Roman Dogma), this aside, let us use Bel and the Dragon as an example (Texas:fer instance) it was around before the Roman Church (and I am not arguing for it being Inspired , I don't think it was) I am trying to get a better "grasp" on how the great Reformed minds would have looked upon the documents without regard for how Rome used, abused, or interpreted them. Or do we know? By this I mean were views slanted some as a reaction to Trent? Or do we have Reformers who wrote and thought about them as a different issue? (Looking at them as Historical documents in a systematic way, rather than reactionary.)


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 14, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure that he does so in his debates with the Romanists while he was in prison. I'll have to look later when I have more time. It would be in Procedures Held With Regard To Those of the Religion of the Netherlands -- which is a hard-to-find translation of a book from 1568.



Okay, I found it. In the letter to his mother, dated May 19, 1567 (shortly before his martyrdom on May 31), he wrote:

"Think of the virtuous mother mentioned in the second book of Macabees, chapter 7, who saw seven sons martyred in one day. She saw them die a cruel death, the tongue cut out, the arms and legs cut off, then being roasted in a kettle over the fire. Witnessing the pitiful sight, she showed a truly courageous heart, consoling and fortifying her children that they might endure death for the Law of God. And when the youngest showed signs of being stirred by the promises of the tyrant, she again encouraged him to suffer and to go the way of his brothers, telling him that he was giving his life and his body for the Law of God, and that he would be raised up in the resurrection."

This letter can be found in "Procedures Held With Regard To Those of the Religion of the Netherlands (1568)".


----------



## etexas (Apr 15, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure that he does so in his debates with the Romanists while he was in prison. I'll have to look later when I have more time. It would be in Procedures Held With Regard To Those of the Religion of the Netherlands -- which is a hard-to-find translation of a book from 1568.
> ...


That is very instructive, thank you for finding that!


----------



## etexas (Apr 15, 2008)

This is becoming an interesting thread (in my opinion) thank you all for the fine feedback so far: We have "heard" from Luther, and Calvin on this, how about some of the other Reformation "Luminaries"  What of say Knox, or some others.......


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 15, 2008)

Okay, I am a little obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Guido de Bres. Want proof?

I went through his writings (including the Belgic Conf.) and this is what I came up with:

De Bres quotes from 6 apocryphal books at least 20 times. Of those 20 times, only once it is in a negative context (he discusses 2 Macabees 12 on purgatory). Most of the time he's using an apocryphal text to support a Christian doctrine. Four of the references are found in Le Baston De La Foy Chrestienne, his polemic against Rome. Fourteen are found in La Racine, Source, et Fondement des Anabaptistes, his huge work regarding the Anabaptists. The other two references have already been mentioned above. 65% (13/20) of the references are to Wisdom.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 15, 2008)

Wes:

How do you think this impacts our reading of BC, Article 6?



> "they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion"


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 15, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Wes:
> 
> How do you think this impacts our reading of BC, Article 6?
> 
> ...



Glad you asked. First of all, I think we need to be clear on what "confirm" means in Article 6. In the French it's "arrester" and in Latin "constitui." I think a better translation would be "establish" or "decide." "Confirm" can work too, but it has to be understood as being synonymous with "establish" and "decide". This isn't just a matter of supporting or corroborating, but establishing a point of doctrine. That's where de Bres goes to town with the fathers in Le Baston De La Foy Chrestienne. One cannot use 2 Macabees 12 to establish the doctrine of purgatory, but one can use the book of Wisdom as supporting evidence for the refutation of its existence (which is what de Bres does).

There are those who argue that the confession itself rules out subscription to the confessions (or that it rules out being a confessional church) with what it says in Articles 5-7. The fact that de Bres felt free to use highly regarded extra-Scriptural material should caution us against such an approach. The key is that sentence in the middle of Article 6, "The Church may read and take instruction from these so far as they agree with the canonical books." De Bres did not consider the apocrypha to be of equal value with the canonical Scriptures, but he did consider them to be of some value (probably higher than we value them). Likewise, we do not consider the confessions to be of equal value with the canonical Scriptures, but we do consider them to be of value. We test everything against the plumb-line of infallible Scripture.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 15, 2008)

Thank you sir!

Though I am not aware of knowledgeable of the original languages of the Confession, I nevertheless came to the same conclusion about confessions and their authority in the church: Subordinate to scripture yet necessary for the well-being of the church.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 15, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Thank you sir!
> 
> Though I am not aware of knowledgeable of the original languages of the Confession, I nevertheless came to the same conclusion about confessions and their authority in the church: Subordinate to scripture yet necessary for the well-being of the church.



And that's also where there's an important difference between the confessions and the apocrypha. Confessions are necessary for the well-being of the church and possess derived, ecclesiastical authority. The same cannot be said for the apocrypha.


----------

