GREAT topic! I hope CPH does really address this. It is not so hard to introduce them back. Market it as: The Holy Bible with Apocrypha. And simply include the old intro from the Lutheran Bible (short but sweet): “Apocrypha: That is, books that are not to be held as Sacred Scripture, and yet which are useful and good to read.”
Confusion ended, eh? Just DO IT!
McCain: Confusion indeed. Precisely which Apocryphal books do we include? Luther did not include them all and the Lutheran Church therefore never received them all. Hmmmm???

The first question I have is “to what end?” To what end would we have the re-introduction of these books in a larger realm of awareness? Is there something specifically that we desire to teach by introducing them? I can think of perhaps showing the richness of history and the like – but I don’t know if that goal is worth the confussion that might be caused today, especially with the Gnostic Scriptures.
And yes, one might say, “But it’s something of our heritage that we’ve lost!” How many countless customs and bits of heritage have been lost over the course of Church History? Things fall away. The classic hymns of yesteryear fall by the wayside. The little books of personal piety that every home had fall into disuse. Good writings stop being used – and while it is neat and good to bring them out and dust them off, there are probably enough good writings (how about stuff Luther wrote?) that could be taught to a congregation outside the worship service which would be much more edifying than simply pulling in the Apocrypha.

Pr. McCain,
Which to include? Only the ones from the Luther Bible. You are out to produce a faithful Lutheran Bible, no? We lose nothing by losing the Esdras.
Pr. Brown,
To what end? So that our people might come to know and rejoice again in these words:
2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
2:13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
2:14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
2:15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
2:16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
2:17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
2:18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
2:19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.
2:20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
2:21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
2:22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls;
2:23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity,
2:24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.
Read it and tell me it is not a beautiful testimony to our Lord Jesus Christ! That’s from Wisdom!

I would argue that the Apocrypha is a cart to the horse of Holy Writ.
I am in complete agreement that it is sad that the Apocrypha has been neglected… so has discipleship in the essential doctrines of the church. A re-introduction of the Apocrypha would be a good second step, but the foundations must be understood by more in this generation first.
If you ask me (and who would?), worldly entertainment and distractions have replaced Christian scholarship for many people. We are consumed by worthless persuits. When we get off of work, the modern devices come on and we vegitate instead of meditate. We spend more and more time bowing to the alters of Ipod, PC, and Television. With no time for study, we demoted the Scriptures to make more room for what we truely love.
The decline of the Apocrypha occured during the infancy and rise of the entertainment industry. We are entertaining ourselves to death.
Rare is the daily home Bible study or even quality time. The American home has more TVs than people. Everyone has one in their own room to discourage those pesky familial interuptions.
With our high literacy rates, this nation has pitiful scholastic knowledge. We do not love what is important; we love what is fun and easy. It’s all about filling appetites. That culture of consumption bleeds over into the church. The Sunday Bible studies at church are depressingly underpopulated. For those who do bother to show up, reading the Bible is often replaced with new and exciting multi-media lessons to keep our childish attention appeased. Welcome to the church of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
The neglected Bible has replaced the Apocrypha on the back burner… which left no room in our “busy” lives for additional books.
The Challenge: Put the TV in the garage for a month and put the Bible back on the front burner. You will be amazed how much time you have to read the Bible… I bet you will probably start to get interested in the Apocrypha by day 26.
If the thought of that would send you or your family into revolt, ask yourself. “Would putting the Bible in the garage evoke the same reaction?”
When you force yourself to face the choice between the Word and the TV, you find out exactly who your beloved master is.

Paul -
The hisotry of the loss of the Apocrypha in English Bibles goes back to the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826 not to include it and thus save paper and ink. The ABS followed suit, as did other English language bible societies. The German and other continental societies continued to publish it. I have an old Lithuanian language Bible printed in 1824 in Koenigsberg which includes “Knygos Apokrypa” as do my German Bibles.
Check out http://www.mundus.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search?coll_id=292&inst_id=38&keyword=Asia or do a Google search of BFBS Apocrypha.
Best regards,
CJE+
Klaipeda, Lithuania

Yes, introduce them, for all the reasons you have already cited. As far as inclusion, I suppose that sticking with those books that Luther included would be most prudent. I’d suggest you follow a four step process, stretched out over, say, ten years.
1) Publish a children’s version of the apocrypha, with the stories simplified, like so many Bible story books. Have good art in it, etc. Parents would learn the stories as they read them to their children.
2) Publish a separate volume of just the books of the Apocrypha, with a summary of Luther’s introductions (he gets a little verbose at times) and intros by modern scholars, like in the Concordia Self-Study Bible.
3) Publish a Study Guide to the Apocrypha. Title it something like: “The Apocrypha: The Bible’s Forgotten Cousin.” Something like that. This could even be published in conjunction with the separate volume of the Apocrypha.
4) Revive the ancient practice and publish the Bible with Apocrypha.

I think one of the most pressing questions facing our people today is,”what makes scripture scripture?” Lutherans have historically left the canon open, allowing the individual books to assert their own authority. That is we allow for uncertainty regarding some books currently found in the New Testament. But many of our people do not understand this. I go the rounds with one lady here who thinks the Church decided rather than affirmed which books were canonical. This is dangerous if we decide scripture we are above scripture. No better than the Mormons that surround me here in Utah. If introducing the apocrypha between the covers of our current Bible’s would somehow combat the idea that the Bible is the Bible because the church made it so, I think it would be a good thing.

In agreement with Bror’s comment…
God turns evil into good.
The great thing about the DaVinci Code and the new gnostic gospels is that they have forced the church to address the silent spectre of cannonicity. Questions and doubt, which were rarely discussed, are now out in the open and can be resolved.
If nothing else, the Apocrypha could act as a fantastic foil to draw the distincion between Holy Scripture and all other writings into greater contrast.

And you think you had problems with The Book of Concord?

This is kinda off topic … but I have an old Lutherbibel that has notes in the margin marking the lectionary pericopes. That would be a nice thing to link the Bible with the liturgy … the flipside of putting the references to Scripture in the LSB liturgies.

I like Bird’s suggestion. Eventually, the Apocrypha should be in our Concordia Study Bibles. In the 16th and 17th centuries, ethics courses were taught in Lutheran schools mainly by teaching Proverbs and *Sirach*.
Yet most of our people would indeed be scandalized. Therefore, I think it would be wise to come out with an Apocrypha Study Edition first, perhaps with the same layout as the Study Bible, and only later bind the two together.

Paul,
Evanson is right. How about a stand-alone Apocrypha edition? KJV and NKJV ones are available. RSV editions are nearly impossible to find. It would be neat to have “ESV” Apocrypha. Crossway keeps talking about an edition in England, but I still haven’t heard anything official.
(Have you seen the 1973 “Common Bible”? It was RSV with every Apocrypha that even the Orthodox use.)
The “Liturgical Text” that is the antiphon for Christmas Eve Midnight’s Introit is actually from the Apocrypha, Wisdom 18:14-15.

Good, it is decided then. =P
What should we do in the mean time? What is the best resource for the Apocrypha? I hesitate to buy a Catholic Edition Bible just to get these texts.

While this isn’t nearly as eloquent as previous posts, I’m going to have to side with St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, Rufinus, Dr. Luther, and others in that I think they are good for edification and ought to be appendixed in our Bibles. To quote Rufinus, the apocrypha ought to be “read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.” (Commentary on the Apostles Creed). And, on a personal note, while I hold to the fact that it isn’t canonical, I was certainly edified by reading Tobit. I guess I would compare it to an english class. You can learn about literature without studying shakespeare, but if he is neglected you are ignoring a wealth of references in other writings. In the case of the Apocrypha, this includes early Lutheran works by men like Gerhard.

Just put it back in. I don’t think people would be as freaked out as some think, and if they are, they’ll get over it. I’ve discussed the issue of the Apocrypha in numerous Bible classes, and no one ever flipped out. In fact, they were very interested in it. I’ve brought in an old German Bible or two published by CPH, and that’s about all it took to convince them we should have the Apocrypha included in our Bibles. And no, I didn’t tell them their present Bibles were “deficient” in some way.
If you want an English Bible with the Apocrypha, I would recommend a nice KJV put out by Cambridge, I think. Also the Oxford RSV Study Bible is nice (if you ignore some of the silly higher-critical notes). I don’t like that the Oxford edition puts the Apocryphal books at the end (they are best placed between the testaments, in my opinion). But the added bonus of the RSV w/Apocrypha is that you get the apocryphal books that both the East and West have included in their Bibles.

Why not a companion book for the Apocrypha? Otherwise I’d have to agree with Rev. Cwirla: “And you think you had problems with The Book of Concord?”
The book we call the “Bible” has come to be synonymous with “the infallible Word of God.” Truth has come to be defined by the determination of whether “it’s in the Bible.”
When the apocryphal books were included in the same volume as the canonical books, was not the understanding much better regarding the relative reliability of various books?
Is the convenience of having these all in one volume outweighed by the confusion and disputes it will likely cause?

One, they would be very good to include as an appendix just as Luther did.
Two, include a historical overview and preface before the appendix so that the reader may understand their place in our heritage.
Three, for those who wish to study this issue further, I recommend Chemnitz’s response to the council of trent as regards to the canon of Holy Scripture in Volume I of his Examination.

…and while you’re at it, we want a patch for Lutheran Service Builder that allows us to insert CPH’s new ESV Apocrypha into the service orders… oh and we’ll need an expansion for the alter book.
hehe, I can already see the editors at CPH choking on their coffee as they scan this blog.

Dear Paul,
This is not as much an opinion on this topic as it is a question. I happened across a copy of the apocrypha some time ago and was struck by 2 Esdras. It seemed to me that quite a few passages in the New Testament were direct echoes from this book. As I say, it was some time ago and I don’t have a copy right at hand, but in 2 Esd. 4 Esdras is asked various unanswerable questions about earthly phenomena such as the weight of fire and how to turn back time. He says that he cannot do it, and is then asked “You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can you comprehend the way of the most high?” Of course I was reminded of Jesus’ question to Nicodemus: “We have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if we speak of heavenly things?” In another chapter the coming of the end is compared to childbirth; Jesus used the same analogy. So I wonder–where DID this book come from? It seems to me that the New Testament authors must have at least had it in mind when they were speaking/writing; is this true or am I reading too much into it? If anybody knows anything about the background of this book, and would be willing to email me about it, I am at jbtb6@aol.com. Thanks!

I think if you just stick the Apocrypha in an edition of the Bible with no prior explanation or education on the matter you will indeed cause confusion, consternation and no small amount of heartburn and spurious accusations about your Romanizing tendencies.
My opinion for a salutary approach to this would be to:
1. Publish a stand alone edition of the apocrypha (Oxford press has a very nice little volume which goes along with their Oxford Anotated Bible.).
2. Publish (and promote) some Bible studies or informational pamphlets on the Apocryphal books.
3. Convice the seminaries to teach a class or two each year on the Apocrypha or individual Apocryphal books (for the next 10 years).
4. Include in Sunday School and Catechetical materials information (as Bror suggested) about where the Bible comes from and how these 66 books came to be identified as “Holy Scripture.” Include discussion about the Apocryphal books and their value.
5. Continue to “talk up” the Apocrypha in Lutheran Witness articles, pastoral conferences, etc. etc.
In about a decade or 15 years, you’ll be a better position to publish a CPH edition of the “Bible with Apocrypha”.
Who knows, maybe people will even be asking for it sooner?!

Obviously, a lot of stuff was written after the last canonical books were penned down for the OT as well as the NT. We’re here talking about including some of those works into the bibles again as apocryphal writings, as they’ve been in typical German bibles from Luther on forward.
As has been mentioned above already, the question of the canon needs to be addressed then very clearly (that is, we need to by crystal clear that we won’t find anything in those ‘interesting’ books that is not already (better) said in the canon). I suggest including in any edition a circumspect discussion of the topic by Chemnitz or Gerhard or a modern author who is on the same level (and on the same page as Chemnitz and G.). Also, what is the difference between the Wisdom of Solomon, which, according to Luther, was written by Philo of Alexandria (1st century AD) and, say, Luther’s own Freedom of a Christian or Small Catechism?
I guess, what I’m wondering about is what is the purpose of including them in the bible book? Why not publish them in a seperate booklet we can all commend warmly for a number of reasons to those interested?
Luther did include them in his full bibles — but is that more than continuing the Vulgate tradition with some modifications? The German Lutheran bibles continued Luther. But where do we in America now *start* after a hiatus of three generations and a new language?
On a practical level, as has also been noted already, biblical (and doctrinal) illiteracy is rampant in our congregations. It’s one thing to introduce the apocrypha to those who have a solid foundation in biblical knowledge and doctrine, as people had in the time of Lutheran Orthodoxy and in “German Missouri”. Yet what is the point of spending energy on introducing apocrypha in congregations that don’t even know their bibles anymore? Let’s not forget that the old Adam in his spiritual blindness will likely prefer to read the apocrypha and get all sorts of funny notions out of them instead of spending time on the canonical writings.
Luther, at a time when catechesis in the basics was badly needed, pointed the readers of the bible, not to all canonical books in general, but to those in which the light of the gospel shone most brightly: the gospel of John, Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Romans, 1 Peter, 1 John. That was, if you will, his “canon in the canon” — the main books in which the basics of Christian doctrine, with the gospel at the center, could be learned most easily and clearly.
It seems to me, we’re in a situation similar to Luther’s own time. Fine, he had (left?) the apocrypha in the bible prints and did commend them; but let’s be clear that none of the apocrypha comes close to the gospel of John and the other writings mentioned by Luther. This is so also because the apocrypha, according to Luther’s intros, contain mainly fine moral instruction for statecraft and the home. I’m not saying this is bad — but what is at the center of the church? Do we need the apocrypha to double up on the law? What signal does that send? You wonder why Rick Warren hasn’t discovered the five laws of life in the apocrypha…
In other words, people already believe that they’re saved by loving their neighbor. What does the promotion of the apocrypha do to remedy that situation? Remember: Luther never “promoted” the apocrypha in the way he “promoted” the gospel of life in Christ. He simply worked with what was there and interpreted it according to the gospel.

A practical suggestions: why not simply translate the Luther Bible of 1545 into English? Then you have Luther’s intros, Luther’s translations — and the apocrypha! It seems to me that would do more for the promotion of Lutheranism in English-speaking lands than the printing of the apocrypha (what’s really Lutheran about them per se?).

I would love to see the Apocrypha placed back into a CPH Bible. My wife and I used a text from the Book of Tobit as the antiphonal verse for the Introit at our Nuptial Mass. Tobit 8:17 “The God of Israel join you together and may He be with you.Even as He had mercy on two that were the only begotten of their fathers.” This was followed by Psalm—128, Several people commented on how lovely the verse was for a wedding, and they appreciated knowing where it was from.
Unfortunately people are going to get hung up on what it is and where it is from rather than what it says. However how many books do our parishoners purchase (The Purpose Driven Life, Your Best Day Now, Left Behind…etc) and they are viewed as companions to Holy Scripture? I have to agree with Bird’s approach in introducing in that it would need to be drawn out and start out with the children first. If the children grasp on to it and know it then the parents will be soon to follow. I even think CPH could do a study on the Apocrypha in relationship to the Bible, outlining themes, teachings, that are found to parallel each other. There were so many Bible studies that came out after the Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas and my people were pretty interested in learning historically how the Gnostics taught. I would look at the Apocrypha in the same light as the Early Church Father’s and provide studies on the writings just like there have been with the Fathers. CPH put out a book not too long ago that dealt with 4 questions that the EC faced and I have used it with my lay people and they have enjoyed it (the name slips my memory right now). So you could do a book in the same light.Have someone write a brief introductory book meant for the laity to the Apocrypha in light of the Lutheran Church (i.e. The Apocrypha in the eyes of the Lutheran Church) and give the historical introductions to the Apocrphy, accounts of how its been used by Luther up to Walther,where it dropped off in usage and make a case for re-introducing it. Or you could also put out a devotional book using the Apocrypha. We have devotionals that use Holy Scripture and words from Luther and the EC Fathers, Billy Graham and Max Lucado (not to put any of those on any kind of parralell), why not have one with words from Holy Scripture and the Apocrypha and some commentary on its relationship to the texts in the devotion? Take these thoughts for what they are worth. More than anything I’d rather see this come out in order to help draw our people away from the garbage that is held so highly from people like Olsteen and Warren and all of the “Christian” propaganda out there.. .

Yes to Holger Sonntag. I too am thinking of congregational ignorance. Even the Book of Concord, being studied (or, at least, offered for study) at our church is widely misunderstood among us, and avoided probably for fear of understanding it! In short, our minds are too easily boggled by what’s in plain sight.
LSB alone presents opportunity for a generation’s worth of grumbling about the good ol’ days of LW, hymns with even more verses; while they do not cease to groan for the CW they ‘enjoy’ on visits to the ‘home church.’
The endless questions about vestments and crucifixes and liturgy itself…even after those questions have been answered: but, people often don’t ask questions seeking answers, but as another way of griping, and of clinging greedily to ignorant opinion.
How do we educate ourselves out of our love of ignorance? When it is so very precious-s-s-s to us. It’s a big problem.

I am noticing a common thread here, and I hope you all are noticing it as well. The clergymen like the idea of reintroducing the apocrypha, but the laymen (including myself) are much more unenthusiasstic.
Please consider our situation as laymen. This is the information age. We laymen are bombarded by errors constantly and it is SO difficult to separate God’s holy truth from all the dreck. I’m sorry, but reintroducing the apocrypha to the Bible has such very high potential for causing confusion that I think it is a very bad idea. If CPH wants to publish the apocrypha as a separate volume, with all the appropriqate disclaimers to the effect that this is a book of religious writings by Church fathers worthy of study, swell. But anything else is just going to confuse people who are still trying to figure out how often they should take communion, or how old should they be when they start, or whether women should preach. Goodness, we have so many issues to iron out in the LCMS! How can anyone seriously think that introducing a whole new catagory of issues to settle is a good idea?

Yet again we have identified the age-old problem of style over subtance.
I agree with Holger that we should not promote the Apocrypha at the expense of Scripture and apostolic doctrine (or even the Book of Concord.) I don’t think it is good to swing the pendulum too far either way. To be totally silent on the Apocrypha is not desireable either.
I like the suggestion of translating the 1545 Bible from German. I would buy at least one copy if CPH would sell it to me.
To address Organshoes’ question about solutions for ignorance:
I don’t think there is any way to combat ignorance other than to make people work against being ignorant. The only way to quit being ignorant is to know something. Those who don’t know the Small Catechism need to learn it… and on up to (and through) the Apocrypha. I’m sure much more learned men than I could suggest a proper education path. The point is that no one is holding people who remain ignorant accountable and we don’t encourage scholarship like we should. There is a rather low bar that we set for expectations and if you get even close to that bar just once, you are allowed to coast for the rest of your life. This is a failing across Christendom for sure, but we have an opportunity to address it in our synod specifically.
If you take a look around at your average congregation (and I’m not talking about just LCMS in this case), it seems like most people are operating at a 5th grade level in their Christian Education. I don’t think people are aware of it.
It has frustrated me, because I feel like I know very little. When I look at what I have learned, it becomes obvious that I know next to nothing. That said, the average joe compliments me for my knowledge and wisdom. To me, that is a tragety. If you are impressed by my knowledge, what does that say about you?
I have been a Lutheran for less than a year and I am shocked that it doesn’t show as much as it should. That doesn’t compliment me and my progress, it shines light on others who have had a lifetime to learn and seem to have squandered it.
I think that it isn’t just that so many of us are ignorant… it is that we are all ignorant of just how ignorant we are.
We should be pushing discipleship at all levels of understanding. That includes making the Apocrypha available for those who are ready for it. This layman would like to see it, but on the condition that it is done carefully and in the spirit of Christian love.

Just kidding: Why not have readings from Qumran for devotional purposes? There are fine psalms out in the desert that speak very well of human humility in view of God’s righteousness…
To reiterate my point: we already are spread thin to the max. As I see it, now is the time of concentration (not of ghetto, don’t get me wrong), not of far-flung expeditions. We don’t need to promote another book in the congregation to create another group of folks “in the know.”
We need to instruct laypeople (and pastors!) in what is essential and familiar; we don’t need to distract them by what is exotic and novel — they do that by themselves already as the good old sinners we are (Acts 17:21). Daily meditation on the catechism, not on the apocrypha (or the Eastern fathers) — that was Luther’s advice for an ignorant church in his day. Let’s heed it, otherwise we fall into just another form of running after the next big / ancient thing — a vice whose mirror image we readily spurn when we see it in the contemporary crowd.
So I say: let’s maybe offer seminary electives on the apocrypha and Qumran and the Mandeans and the Gnostics and whatever theological Big Foot is out there; in this way, pastors can educate their people about the next “gospel” we’ll read in National Geographic. Let’s point those who are interested to the existing editions of the apocrypha, Qumran, etc. But let’s not spend our scarce resources (time, money, goodwill, …) on it. Let’s instead spend ourselves on the promotion of genuine Lutheranism and the true, Lutheran understanding of God’s word. And, as said before, I doubt that the apocrypha are essential to this understanding.
I wager that it’s more beneficial to study M. Luther than to study J. Sirach. The former will make you a Christian (and there’s so much to learn for us!!) — what will the latter do for you? Certainly, we can (and should) study both. But, again, who does? And if we have to choose, the choice should be clear.
Translating Luther’s bible would enhance our knowledge of Lutheran theology but, my guess, the apocrypha included in Luther’s bible are not at the center of that enhancement.

‘we are all ignorant of just how ignorant we are.’
In a nutshell!
Want us to know how ignorant we are? Well, good luck getting us to listen. We’re awfully busy with our opinions right now.
Honestly, I listened to a council member state recently he’d return to Bible study when Pastor starts teaching the Bible again, because right now, he’s ‘only teaching the Book of Concord.’ I hope that guy never runs for elder. Bad enough he’s our next congregational president.
There’s a big divide, I think between the learned pastor and the person in the pew–not of intelligence, but of interest. It’s pretty much up to the Pastor to know all that stuff, and his few captivated minions.
I’d settle for more people in our congregation (synod?) reading Cyberbrethren, or listening to Issues, Etc., as opposed to reading Rick Warren and listening to the Christian rock radio.

I was wondering when Christian rock would be blamed for the downfall of Christendom! What a relief. Now I don’t have to wait any longer.
I do agree with Organshoes about the divide between the haves and have-nots of doctrine. Ultimately, each one of us is accountable for our own actions. If you don’t know spit, you have no one to blame but yourself. This isn’t the 1300s and people have the ability to become informed like never before. Why don’t they? My only conclusion is that they either don’t think it is important or they don’t care…. or worse no one has bothered to help them out.
Maybe it is different in other places of the synod, but it seems like the pastors locally bend over backwards to try to teach the masses… with minimal or no support from the laity. They’ve handed out Small Catechisms like candy, but that doesn’t mean anyone is going to read them. They certainly aren’t going to teach anything from them. By the time kids hit Confirmation they should be “confirming” what they have already learned. We should probably just rename it “First Exposure”.
And those of us who do know a little bit are the worst of all because we don’t pass on any of it. We contribute to the distractions and the debates over pointless dribble instead of helping our brothers and sisters out. We know just enough to be dangerous and squash people.

Not Christian rock as the downfall, but as what you find as you’re falling down, if it’s the only musical realization of the Christian faith you can be bothered with.
Agreed: Faithful pastors are up against faithless sheep. We prefer thinking we’re only mostly sheep.
Disagree that the studious learners haven’t ‘bothered to help them out.’ They undoubtedly lack the same secret code Pastor does, that opens the self-satisfied heart.

Goodness! Lots of comments. Look, we already include the Catechism bound in the Bible and everyone and his brother publishes THEIR thoughts in “Study Bibles” of various kinds. English readers are actually USED to having stuff besides the canonical Books in our bound Bibles. Put in Luther’s caveat, clearly marking them off, and publish them. You can do it this YEAR and I’ll bet you’ll find it goes EASIER than your publication of Concordia.

True. Lots of Bibles have LOTS of stuff by way of explanation, intrepretation, study aids and resources. My only concern is that CPH put, say, a quarter-inch colored boarder around the pages of the Apocrypha section to give a visual that clearly distinguishes it. I still wish the new Concordia book had printed the introductory explanations (which I love) in a colored and italic text so that it would be visually clear what was explanation and what was text.
Make a clear distinction, and people can understand and accept it as referential help.
I imagine CPH is considering whether it is something that can be done for the upcoming ESV Lutheran Study Bible — not a 10 year plan! (but I’m not a spokesman!)

Another example of how the Apocrypha is helpful is study the progression of thought in the original Numbers passage with the bronze serpent, check out Wisdom 16:5-7, and then John 3:14-15. You see how our Lord’s explication of Numbers seems to be filtered through Wisdom.

Paul:
I do not believe that we should print the
Apocryphal books in the bibles printed by our church.
I read the explanation that Luther and generally German bibles included these books.
The Apocryphal books were accepted at the council of trent which began about the year that Luther died. Why have it appear that they are part of our Bible when they are not? They are not authoritative and not inerrent. So let’s not confuse people.
In your comments, it is overstated that Roman Catholics use it to support their doctrine. Although the Apocryphal books indicate that “it is a good and holy thing to pray for the dead,” this does not prove purgatory or any of the other reasons to pray to the saints or through them to God.
By the way, this is what I taught at Concordia University, Irvine (which is now the second or third largest) in our system.
Chuck Manske
P.S. I would also like to have your input.

I use the Cambridge KJV with Apocrypha, and I (a layman) would love to see it returned to its rightful place in our Bibles and in our pericopes.
Nonetheless, I can’t help but think that a Concordia Bible with Apocrypha would become a political football, given the growing divide between those who view the Bible in Protestant terms and worship accordingly (and who detect the smell of the incense of Rome whenever those who believe that liturgy is not among the adiaphora enter the room), and those who identify with the historical Church of the Augsburg Confession. I fear it wouldn’t be above some to point out that, while some are trifling over the Wisdom of Sirach, others are busy “changing the culture” of our Synod with hearts “Ablaze!” with “the Gospel.”
That said, a reintroduction of the Apocrypha would provide many pastors whose sheep have ears to hear the opportunity to examine not just the texts themselves but our entire approach toward Scripture (“Pastor, explain this word ‘homologoumena’”), the Church, and tradition.

What Trent did is irrelevant in this regard; the Missouri Synod had no trouble printing them in our Bibles in the days when Lutherans KNEW what Trent said about them.
As to their authority in the Church, I always encourage people to check out Chemnitz’ *Enchiridion* in this regard. It appears from his layout that in the Lutheran Church Wisdom of Solomon has as much an no more authority than the Book of James. In other words, *doctrine* cannot be drawn from either book that is not found in the non-apocryphal books.

The Chemnitz treatment can be found in CPH’s *Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion* on pages 44 and 45. If you turn the page and read the top of 46, you’ll also see that Chemnitz advocates the use of something like the Breviary for the daily reading of Scriptures. Now, it would be GREAT if CPH would publish a Breviary, a Daily Prayer Book, that might introduce some of the more important passages from the Apocrypha, as well as have the daily lectionary from LSB printed out in full, and maybe relevant readings from the Fathers and such. A man can dream…
McCain: Patience is a virtue.

Oh, one more thing, since Chemnitz’ distinction came up. The Luther Bible, even though it does not mark them as NT Apocrypha, does an interesting thing with the book order in the NT:
After Philemon, then 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation.
Although not perfectly clearn cut, the attempt was to move the questionable books to the back.

I think that was Tyndale’s order, as well, which makes sense, given his heavy reliance on the Luther Bible. (Hence Daniell’s assertion that the KJV is a Lutheran Bible—despite, I would add, Tyndale’s prefaces, in which he seems at times confused about the Law-Gospel distinction.)

I do love Tydale’s translation! It has some real gems. “Babble not much as the heathen do.” I crack up everytime I think of that one.

I failed to mention, for those who haven’t read David Daniell, that a great percentage of the KJV is straight Tyndale, hence the “KJV is a a Lutheran Bible” claim.

I would also like to see the Apocrypha in a Lutheran study Bible. I don’t know if we have enough clout w/the ESV people by ourselves to get them published in an American edition, but it would be nice to try. I, also, have heard from someone at Crossways that the English (i.e., not American) ESV already includes these books but haven’t found verification. As it is, I use the RSV in my Logos Bible software for most research and printing purposes. For personal reading, I turn to the Third Millennium Bible, a gentle update of the Authorized Version.

Having a Lutheran Bible with the Apocrypha would be great…I can’t say I disagree with many of the comments above.
I, however, have a different desire. I would like an Interlinear Bible with the Lutheran/ESV/Whatever English translation side-by-side with the Hebrew OT, Septuagint, and Greek NT.

This is all very interesting to read. My Aunt(nearly 90) tells me that when her and my father were very young. The services were still in German. The women and children sat on one side of the church and the men on the other. When I compare that to the crayon wrappers left in the pews (which the church provides at the back of the church)and the many toys and snacks I see in church (I think the waffels in the ziplock was at least quiet).I can’t help to wonder with the shortage of men going into the ministry today if planning a Bible in the future would be a loss to CPH or any publisher. I do agree with Bird’s first three steps. Children need to see from the earliest age what church is all about. In a way they understand. Helping them to fold thier hands in prayer, pointing to the words in the Hymnal even before they can read. Teach them to participate. Do we need to publish a parenting in the pew book first? Maybe we wouldn’t have a shortage of men going into the Ministry.

I like Holger’s idea. For an edition of the CPH Study Bible or something to that effect, make it a truly Lutheran study Bible. Use the ESV or whichever translation would fit best, then use Luther’s prefaces to each book and include, by all means, the Apocrypha.
I’m not that gung ho on pushing the use of the Apocrypha in regular readings or whatnot, but I do like the Song of the Three Young Men in the additions to Daniel, and there are some exciting moments in 1 Maccabees.

If we put the apocrypha back, we need also to flag the 7 New Testament antilogemna as the 16th century Reformers did (see Chemnitz’ Enchiridon pg. 44-45 Poellot translation) as having the same uncertain canonical status as the apocrypha, and should consider printing all 7 (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and Revelation) as appendices to the New Testament too, or at least put James and Revelation in the back as appendices as most 16th century Lutheran Bibles did if I’m not mistaken? Confusion reigns among us today on the real 59 canonical books of the OT and NT, and simply reintroducing the apocrypha without clearing up the NT antilogema confusion would be a mistake in my view…
McCain: Martin Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent has a very helpful discussion of canonicity issues.

>>>At the time of the Council of Trent, Rome stupidly and unjustly declared these books to be as equally authoritative as the rest of the books of Scripture, something that Mother Church had never done before>>>.
The shocking thing about this post and Mr. McCain is how quick the author is with his rudeness towards “Rome”; remember the “Shame on the Pope” post last December. Really the question Mr. McCain raises in his post could be discussed without reference to Rome, if Mr. McCain believes a Lutheran church can stand on its own. The Catholic Church is not your Holy Spirit to guide you into all truths – the Lutheran churches, supposedly the true churches, made a decision (or failed to make a decision) without the guidance of the Holy Spirit and now instead of seeking help from the Paraclete who departed them, he turns his ready anger at the Catholic Church. Once again, the shallowness of Mr. Paul and of his system is made apparent in his post.

An interesting thread, and many thoughtful comments. At the heart of the question of whether or not to read the apocrypha — and how and when — is the authority of Scripture. More “scandalous” than “adding back” the OT apocrypha would be to relegate the NT antilegomena to the status of apocrypha. Yet this is what Luther did with his “relocation” of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Furthermore, Chemnitz himself declared that the NT antilegomena was of the same “rank” as the OT apocrypha. Even Walther defending a pastor who would not use Revelation — and Pieper cites this approvingly.
McCain: Prof. Kloha, do you regard Acts as also being a book possibly to be relegated to antilegomena status?
A basic problem that we have in American Lutheranism is that we cannot think like Luther and Chemnitz on Scripture any longer — we frequently sound more “Evangelical” or “Fundamentalist” on these issues. Furthermore, we are afraid of history — as if questioning the status of Revelation or James or 2 Peter was the same as questioning the Four gospels. I believe that only with a Fundy “level canon” view can you end up with the Left Behind series, A Purpose Driven Life, and the Prayer of Jabez. Had we a genuine Lutheran view of Scripture, our people may have been preserved from all these.
A basic read on issues of the canon is JAO Preus, “The Canon in the Lutheran Dogmaticians,” in the 1961 _Springfielder_. R. Preus’ preface to _The Inspiration of Scripture_ highlights some of the same issues. J. Preus flatly states that Gerhard marked a shift away from the position of Luther and Chemnitz toward what is essentially a Roman and Reformed view — his labels!
In all this, as someone suggested, our Bibles need prefatory material to help our people understand why, when, and for whom a book was written, when it was received, and what role it plays in the canon. When Luther say, of James, “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered with the chief books,” why are we shocked? Have we lost a Lutheran perspective on the authority of Scripture? Shouldn’t it be obvious that you read James only after you’ve got Romans and Galatians down, and Revelation only if you’ve got the entire OT as well as Jesus teaching on the Kingdom of God sorted through?

I think its best that those books stay out of the Bible. I don’t believe we live in a society that can think critically about religious issues anymore. We theologians understand the apocrypha’s role and worth, but laypeople would have a knee jerk reaction to the reappearance of apocryphal works in the Bible. It wouldn’t be worth the fight and I think members of other denominations who come into our church would begin to think twice. In addition, some members of our church might be led astray and have thoughts about swimming the Tiber.

My initial reaction was–Yeah, put them in!
Why? Because I’m one of these young Fort Wayne graduates who loves tradition. (I heard a rumor that a district president referred to us as “young fogies”–a phrase he stole from Thomas Oden, I think?)
But if my several-month long pastorate has taught me anything, it is that people in church generally don’t read the bible at all, let alone the catechism. So if I succeed in teaching them LW’s version of the magnificat, for instance, or why it is acceptable for Lutherans to cross themselves, I’ve encouraged an appreciation for church tradition. I’ve possibly given them a different ecclesiastical “taste,”–catholic as opposed to sectarian.
But I’ve done nothing to change the fundamental ignorance of what is in the Bible, and especially, the ignorance of how God declares me righteous.
I love to ransack old church libraries for gems from earlier Missouri fathers that have been lost. I think I love these heirlooms because they preach the pure gospel to me.
But the danger I face regularly is that what comes across to the people is not the pure gospel, but rather the trappings of an earlier age that has been lost.
The days when the apocrypha necessarily came with Lutheran bibles has been lost. The question is, as Holger Sonntag put eloquently–do I want people to know that it’s okay to read the apocrypha, even though it’s not scripture–or do I want them to actually read the bible?