The '''Rest of the Chapters of Esther''' is a significant portion of Scripture in the [[Septuagint]], being six entire chapters of collected texts of the [[Esther (Biblical book)|Book of Esther]] (10:4—16:24), a collection of parts of the book which [[St. Jerome]] moved out of sequence, put together as 6 distinct chapters, and placed at the end of the book of Esther in his Latin ''[[Vulgate]]'' translation of the Bible. Readers of the book have found his edited form of the book confusing. The complete Book of Esther as read in the 1st century Christian Church in the Septuagint is accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible'', and is found in the books of the Old Testament of the ''Vulgate''. It is included in its entirety in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] the complete Book of Esther with all of its parts is [[Dogma|dogmaticallydogma]] tically accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''—books of the Bible accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref name=largest>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox).<br/>[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.]<br/>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities]<br/>
The '''Eastern Orthodox Church''', officially called the '''Orthodox Catholic Church''', and also referred to as the '''[[Orthodox Church]]''' and '''Orthodoxy''', is the second largest [[Christianity|Christian church]] in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, most of whom live in [[Eastern Europe]], the [[Middle East]], and [[Russia]].<br/>{{cite web |last1=Calivas |first1=Rev. Alciviadis C. |title=The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church |publisher=Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America |year=1983 |url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7061 |accessdate=7 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |last1=Fairchild |first1=Mary |title=Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination |publisher=about.com |url=http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/p/orthodoxprofile.htm |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |title=Christianity |work=Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents |publisher=adherents.com |url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}</ref><ref name=Prot>See [http://www.888c.com/worldChristianDenominations.htm Percentage of Christians in Protestant Denominations (29.5%)].</ref>
==Canonical status==
The complete Book of Esther as read in the 1st century Christian Church in the Septuagint is accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible''. It was included in the canon of inspired scripture identified by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the synod of Rome (382) and affirmed by the Council of Hippo (393), and by the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]]. It is included in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]], and is found in a revised form edited by Jerome in the books of the Old Testament of the ''Vulgate''. This form of the book was reaffirmed as part of the traditional canon of the Bible by the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1446). Martin Luther removed from his German Bible the six entire chapters of the Book of Esther (10:4—16:24), which Jerome had placed at the end of the book in the Vulgate, and placed them in the [[Apocrypha]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] the complete Book of Esther with all of its parts is [[Dogma|dogmaticallydogma]] tically accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''.
==Separated title==
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%206:2-3&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 6:2-3]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2corinthians%203:14-16&version=KJV 2 Corinthians 3:14-16]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1thessalonians%202:13-16&version=KJV 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1timothy%203:14-15&version=KJV 1 Timothy 3:14-15]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1timothy%206:20-21&version=KJV 1 Timothy 6:20-21]
[[Book of Sirach#The Prologue|Jesus ben Sira]] c. 150 B.C. observed that "''the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.''" ''See'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%201:1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1]
The rabbinical school of [[Johanan ben Zakkai]] at Jamnia (not a Council <ref name=Jamnia/>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Book of Judith|Judith]], [[Maccabee|Maccabees]] s ([[1 Maccabees]], [[2 Maccabees]]), [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint and accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for its inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon. Additional factors also included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 most certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. ''See''—
*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]
*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf Background and History to the Apocrypha, by David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)
:it was written in Hebrew;
:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>
Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the whole of the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power.<ref>[httphttps://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] —(academia.edu/6811953) —''at the page site (which looks empty) scroll down to see the text''.<br/>Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?] (catholicdefense.blogspot.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/711-academies-in-palestine Jewish Encyclopedia. Academies in Palestine] (jewishencyclopedia.com)</ref> However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia (Beta Israel),<ref>Ethiopian Jews—Beta Israel. The rise of Beta Israel dates back to the reign of King Solomon in the late Tenth Century B.C..<br/>—See [http://www.blackpast.org/gah/beta-israel Blackpast.org: Beta Israel](blackpast.org)</ref> follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.<ref name=EncJud/>
===Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===
This is based on the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment'''
[[British Critic, July 1841
]]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.<blockquote>"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."
:—John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></blockquote>
The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as the Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical and as having all the marks of inspired writing,<ref name=OriginalHebrew>[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, '''citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew.''' (Google eBook)</ref> as did the Ethiopian Jews.<ref name=EncJud/> Jesus and the New Testament writers also quoted from the Septuagint Bible as from authoritative scripture having the marks of inspired writing.<ref name=LXX.NTquotes>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quote ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes'', and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon''). See [http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.]</ref>
:
[[Marcion]],<ref>Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See [http://www.theopedia.com/Marcionism Theopedia: Marcionism] and [[http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion Theopedia: Marcion]]<br/>See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites] (newadvent.org)</ref> around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel.<ref>See the [[Biblical Canon#Canon of Marcion (Heretic) c. 140|Canon of Marcion]]</ref> He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.
:
The [[Deuterocanonicals]] were disputed from the 1st century to the 16th century, and include 7 books of the New Testament which many Christians and some individual scholars of those centuries confidently asserted were not authentic, but were ''clearly'' perceived by them as spurious writings.
*[[Book of Tobit|Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith|Judith]]
*[[Rest of Esther (Bible)|Greek rabbinical Additions to Esther]] (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
*[[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon)]]
*[[Book of Sirach|Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (or Sirach or Ecclesiasticus)]]
The meaning of the term "deuterocanonical" is therefore not identical with "apocryphal".
:
In 1539 Martin Luther declared that four of the New Testament deuterocanonicals are clearly hostile to the Gospel because they do not have "the marks of inspired scripture" and do not clearly "preach Christ": '''Hebrews, James, Jude''' and '''Revelation'''—he held that they were not on the same level as the pure scriptures.<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament] (bible-researcher.com/antilegomena)<br/>[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/wilkgren.html Luther And "New Testament Apocrypha", A. Wikgren, in R. H. Fischer's A Tribute To Arthur Vööbus: Studies In Early Christian Literature, 1977, pp. 379-390. © University of Chicago Press]</ref> He found several books of the Bible to be ''clearly'' lacking the "marks of inspired writing".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZUAuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Martin+Luther+on+the+Book+of+Tobit&source=bl&ots=o2f-ODSQ5i&sig=5akAGrPB7QUCRHbiEqqWxg5Egek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqmUVLrgM8_4yQS19IGgAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Martin%20Luther%20on%20the%20Book%20of%20Tobit&f=false The Table Talk of Martin Luther (1599), By Martin Luther, translated Alexander Chalmers, editor William Hazlitt. Bell & Daldy, 1872. 390 pages] ISBN-10: 0486443590 ISBN-13: 978-0486443591.<br/>[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm The Truth About Martin Luther] (jesus-is-savior.com)</ref>
:"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." <ref name=facts>'The Facts About Luther, O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.</ref>
:"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness."
Luther admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
:"If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." <ref>Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.</ref>
:
Luther complained that people who did not know the original languages were quoting and interpreting the plain meaning of scripture wrongly. He said:
:"to expound Scripture, to interpret it rightly and to fight against those people who quote wrongly ... cannot be done without knowledge of the languages." <ref>''Luther Speaks'', ed. H. P. Ehrenberg, page 72, cited in [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_luther_s-wood.html "Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation" A. Skevington Wood <nowiki>[1916â€"1993]</nowiki>, Ph.D., F.R. Hist.S.] (VII.) (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref> (See [[Proof text]], [[Sola scriptura]] and [[Hermeneutics]].)
:
In 1546 at the [[Council of Trent]] the bishops of the Catholic Church [[dogma]]tically "added" the [[Deuterocanonicals]], the 7 disputed New Testament books along with the 7 disputed books and parts of 2 other books of the Old Testament "with all their parts", to the canon of the Bible. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had definitively found all 73 books of the Catholic Bible to be "certainly" inspired scripture, given by God himself, and preserved and retained by the Church as sacred scripture since the 1st century. Writers who point out that the Apocrypha were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church do not include the fact that the disputed New Testament books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were also ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.
:
The [[Religious Society of Friends|Friends (Quakers)]] do not define any writing as canonical but what each person, "led by the spirit and light of Christ", has determined to be scripture or recognizes as inspired.<ref name=Private>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment'''
[[British Critic, July 1841
]]] (newmanreader.org)</ref><blockquote>"Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, "Oh! no; it is not the scriptures;" and told them it was the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth." —''from the'' Journal of [[George Fox]].<ref>[http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxbible.html George Fox's Teaching on the Place of Scripture] (qis.net)</ref></blockquote>
:
Members of ''[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]]'' have taken a form of "private judgment" as an infallible guide. They quote Moroni 10:4 <ref>[http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575] (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)</ref><blockquote>"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."</blockquote> Some individuals, who have used this suggested test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so", and so they reject the books added by Mormons. But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".
:
Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book –book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>
:
Historical-critical researchers who use the literary methods of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Criticism]] seek to find out all they can with regard to the portion of the Bible they are studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. The Higher Criticism means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Historical criticism assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. This does not necessarily mean that the individual historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. What one scholar holds to be very probable another considers to be very unlikely. The regular majority of intelligent higher critical scholars who take the Bible seriously have found the Bible to be historically reliable and truthful and unique as a ''very credible witness'' to what the Lord of history has actually done in history, and as documents in character superior to all the ethical rationalism of the writings of secular humanists. This includes those deuterocanonicals called "apocrypha".<blockquote>"'''''The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'...'''''" —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. ''bold-face emphasis added''.)</blockquote>They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.<ref name=BFMKwatera>St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.</ref><ref name=literature>[https://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience]</ref>
:
Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in contrast to the doctrine of salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.
:See the text of the 1989 lecture given by [http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm Dr. N.T.Wright "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?"] <ref>N.T.Wright. "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?" (The Laing Lecture 1989, and the Griffith Thomas Lecture 1989. ) Originally published in Vox Evangelica, 1991, 21, 7–32. N.T. Wright.</ref>
:See the video talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbBzVH2HM_w '''I Don't Recognize Your "Authority"''' - YouTube] —"I have only your word for this. I have no obligation to believe you. What authority do you have to tell me these books are the word of God? I just don't recognize your authority." (See [[Heresy]])
There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought, and sometimes of the actual words used, between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.<ref>[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_ntreferences.asp Church Society: For Bible, Church and Nation. Issues | The Apocrypha | New Testament References — New Testament similarities to the Apocrypha] (churchsociety.org)</ref>
The majority of quotations of the Old Testament are not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh, but are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts which have been rejected as Apocrypha and are in the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Church.<ref name=LXX.NTquotes/> The entire New Testament was written in Greek, addressed to the people, and to individual Christians (such as Philemon, Timothy and , Titus, and Gaius in 3 John), and there appears to be no evidence that the assemblies of worshiping Christians in the ancient early Church read the Old Testament in Hebrew but substantial evidence instead that they read them in the language of the people, from the Septuagint. The ''[[Vetus Latina]]'' <ref>[http://www.vetuslatina.org/ Vetus Latina - Resources for the study of the Old Latin Bible]</ref> (Old Latin) and ''[[Vulgate]]'' versions of the Old Testament of the Bible read in Christian worship services contained all of the books of the Septuagint.
===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Esther===
==="Judge for yourself"===
The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is a an example of the logical fallacy of "''[[Appeal to personal interest]]''", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct.<ref name=Private/> It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority established and preserved by God that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment. It sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible (and those who disagree with that judgment are "obviously wrong"). This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. [http://biblehub.com/multi/proverbs/3-5.htm Proverbs 3:5] [http://biblehub.com/multi/isaiah/5-21.htm Isaiah 5:21] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%203:24&version=NRSVCE Sirach 3:24] [http://biblehub.com/multi/jude/1-19.htm Jude 19]
''Eisegesis'' occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text, saying that it means what it does ''not'' mean ([[Proof text|reader-response Biblical interpretation]]).<ref>See four articles
*[httphttps://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?] —gotquestions.org
*[http://thechristianwatershed.com/2007/12/10/eisegesis-vs-exegesis/ Eisegesis vs. Exegesis] —thechristianwatershed.com
*[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/how-to-separate-exegesis-from-eisegesis-in-this-example How to separate exegesis from eisegesis in this example?] —hermeneutics.stackexchange.com
*[http://carm.org/dictionary-eisegesis Dictionary: eisegesis. Brief informal definition and discussion of eisegesis: —''citing a classic example of Mormon eisegesis on 1 Cor. 8:5'' (KJV)] —carm.org</ref> ''Eisegesis'' is severely condemned according to many literalist readings of the text of the [[Deuteronomy|Book of Deuteronomy]] and the [[Book of Revelation]] <ref>See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-18.htm# Literalist commentaries on Revelation 22:18] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/4-2.htm# Literalist commentaries on Deuteronomy 4:2] (biblehub.com).</ref>
::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26] </ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the L<small>ORD</small>LORD. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their literal reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomyjohn%2052015:326&version=KJV John 15:6.]</ref>::"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and ''from'' the things which are written in this book." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18-19&version=KJV Revelation 22:18-19] <ref>Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the [[Third Council of ChalcedonCarthage (397)|4th century]], and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic [[Council of Trent]], the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by [[dogma]]tically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See [[Apocrypha]] and [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online].</ref>
===Apostolic authority===
Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]). It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but also that not all Christians have the gift of discernment or of leadership "''are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?''". [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]
See [[Biblical Canon#Authority to determine the Biblical Canon|Authority to determine the Biblical Canon]].
==External links==
* [http://www.wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes/HOB/BibleD-OTText.pdf The Old Testament Text. (wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes)] * [http://biblehub.com/topical/e/esther.htm Topical Bible: Esther] (biblehub.com) * [http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=esther&ch= Esther: Introduction] (usccb.org) * [http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament] * [http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction] (matt1618.freeyellow.com) * [http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca) * [http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org) * [http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618] * [https://books.google.com/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA758&lpg=PA758&dq=Commentaries+on+Greek+text+of+Esther&source=bl&ots=5SbLg__xNL&sig=gN7myfbFtmt3-1ivQWTz69BFYPk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XdyuVLq9GYWgyQSJyICABQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Commentaries%20on%20Greek%20text%20of%20Esther&f=false Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, edited by James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson] page 758. Greek Esther, John Jarick (googlebooks.com) * [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmiller/2013/06/youre-reading-the-wrong-book-of-esther/ Patheos: Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Joel J. Miller: Where Christian Theology Meets Daily Life. '''You’re reading the wrong Book of Esther''', June 9, 2013 by Joel J. Miller] * [http://josephus.org/Esther.htm Thematic Concordance to the Works of Josephus. Esther: Her Point of View. Josephus' Version with Commentary, by G. J. Goldberg] (josephus.org) * [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Purim/History/Book_of_Esther/Greek_Versions.shtml My Jewish Learning. Greek Versions of Esther. Same story, different perspective, By Adele Berlin] * [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp Greek and English Septuagint] <br/> [http://vulgate.org/ Latin and English Vulgate]<br/>[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Kings James Apocrypha Online]
[[categoryCategory:Bible]][[categoryCategory:apocryphaApocrypha]]