The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

[Andrew]

"And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:22-24

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION] did you ever find the opportunity to watch the video clip I posted? Could you share your thoughts on it?
(don't let the video title throw you off, Nathan is a master at "fishing" youtubers, over a million views so far!...must be something to it)

 

[Andrew]

Those are the candles that we are still burn in our Services...

Hand-dipped bee's wax tapers...

Right now as I go to Services!


Arsenios

I would love to have a look around an EOC church and listen to their sermon, not too popular here in the states I gather, at least not where I live.

 

[MennoSota]

I would love to have a look around an EOC church and listen to their sermon, not too popular here in the states I gather, at least not where I live.

There are a handful of EOC churches near me. Most are Greek Orthodox, one is Romanian Orthodox and there is a Coptic (Egyptian) Church nearby.

 

[Andrew]

There are a handful of EOC churches near me. Most are Greek Orthodox, one is Romanian Orthodox and there is a Coptic (Egyptian) Church nearby.

I just looked it up and the nearest one is 44 miles away.
So, MennoSota, what is your view on books that were once accepted as part of scripture by early Christians such as Maccabees but are now rejected and/or ignored? Secular or inspired?

 

[MennoSota]

I just looked it up and the nearest one is 44 miles away.
So, MennoSota, what is your view on books that were once accepted as part of scripture by early Christians such as Maccabees but are now rejected and/or ignored? Secular or inspired?

Which early Christians?
Just like today, not all Christians were in agreement. I tend to trust the Hebrew leaders in their determination of which books are in the Canon of the Hebrew Bible. They do not include the apochryphal texts as God inspired.
Eusebius did not consider them inspired and if he had the final word in the church at Rome, they would not be included.
Are the books worthless? Hardly. They help connect the silent period with some insights into the culture of the time. But, they have theological teachings that are inconsistent with God's attributes and His gracious work in the lives of sinners.
Therefore, I don't view them as sacred writings.

 

[Andrew]

Which early Christians?
Just like today, not all Christians were in agreement. I tend to trust the Hebrew leaders in their determination of which books are in the Canon of the Hebrew Bible. They do not include the apochryphal texts as God inspired.
Eusebius did not consider them inspired and if he had the final word in the church at Rome, they would not be included.
Are the books worthless? Hardly. They help connect the silent period with some insights into the culture of the time. But, they have theological teachings that are inconsistent with God's attributes and His gracious work in the lives of sinners.
Therefore, I don't view them as sacred writings.

If they contain teachings that don't line up with Gods attributes and go against His teachings.. why don't we toss them into the fire for good riddance along side the Quran? The Quran may have some historical truths but since it is incompatible with Christ's Gospel it should be discouraged against greatly wouldn't you agree?

There is no threat now and there was no threat then, I quoted our Church Fathers prior to the masoretic, prior to Constantine, Prior to the council of Nicea, and they never felt any threats from these books nor could they even distinguish between what is "non inspired/secular" from what is "inspired" because there was no such thing to begin with nor was it ever the case in the entire history of the Old Testimont canon..
Jesus and the apostles observed a holiday that has no origin without the story of Maccabees, yet this story -along with the other rejects from the Septuagint -that speak unto God and likewise from God and for Gods people.. are somehow just secular?

Could you suggest to me some verses that teach us heretical doctrine from these books since this is what appears to be your argument?
For instance if I were a Jew in that time before Christ I could reject Maccabees because it taught work on the Sabbath when they were marching for battle.. we are Christian now, but if you're going to be fair you must place yourself in the time of the OT before Christ and consider what was heretical at the time that these books were written.
If you want to place yourself on the NT side then you will find it no wonder that the OT laws conflict greatly with the NT gospel of saving grace.
Jesus and the Apostles obviously would not call the story surrounding the rebuilding of the temple and triumph for Israel over their enemies as uninspired or secular when they were observing that very story every winter.

 

[Arsenios]

Exactly.

The problem with not accepting them as part of the original OT canon, and rather calling them books of "some" value but less than scripture is... well let's be honest, they are completely ignored, the churches are doing us no favors by belittling these books that were always accepted by Jews and Christians but were de-canonised much much later... who wants to read "uninspired" books? These books must have been inspired since they mention God and His people all throughout with historical accounts, other wise they are blasphemous by false witnessing and therefore should be DIScouraged to be read by Christians.

A prescient observation...

Thank-you...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I would love to have a look around an EOC church and listen to their sermon, not too popular here in the states I gather, at least not where I live.

We only do a short homily, 10-15 minutes, in a chanted Service of prayers from the Psalms (mostly) that lasts an hour and a half in our Church... Plus the one and a quarter hour service preceding it... We worship - We do not lecture... Homily is on the assigned Gospel and Epistle reading for the day, unless the Pastor gets inspired...

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...TkAhWMsp4KHeUSAf8QMwj8ASgOMA4&iact=mrc&uact=8


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

If they contain teachings that don't line up with Gods attributes and go against His teachings.. why don't we toss them into the fire for good riddance along side the Quran? The Quran may have some historical truths but since it is incompatible with Christ's Gospel it should be discouraged against greatly wouldn't you agree?

There is no threat now and there was no threat then, I quoted our Church Fathers prior to the masoretic, prior to Constantine, Prior to the council of Nicea, and they never felt any threats from these books nor could they even distinguish between what is "non inspired/secular" from what is "inspired" because there was no such thing to begin with nor was it ever the case in the entire history of the Old Testimont canon..
Jesus and the apostles observed a holiday that has no origin without the story of Maccabees, yet this story -along with the other rejects from the Septuagint -that speak unto God and likewise from God and for Gods people.. are somehow just secular?

Could you suggest to me some verses that teach us heretical doctrine from these books since this is what appears to be your argument?
For instance if I were a Jew in that time before Christ I could reject Maccabees because it taught work on the Sabbath when they were marching for battle.. we are Christian now, but if you're going to be fair you must place yourself in the time of the OT before Christ and consider what was heretical at the time that these books were written.
If you want to place yourself on the NT side then you will find it no wonder that the OT laws conflict greatly with the NT gospel of saving grace.
Jesus and the Apostles obviously would not call the story surrounding the rebuilding of the temple and triumph for Israel over their enemies as uninspired or secular when they were observing that very story every winter.

False Doctrines:*The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life:

“Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).

The foregoing was a common belief among*heathen peoples, but certainly it is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1).

Praying for the Dead:*The Apocrypha teaches that prayer may be made for the dead:

“Wherefore he made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sins” (2 Maccabees 12:45).

Roman Catholics cite this passage to find support for their dogma of praying for the dead to be released from purgatory, but the effort is vain. Obviously there’s no New Testament passage to buttress the notion.

Alms for Sins:*The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms: “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” (Tobit 12:9).

The Suspect Morality of the Apocrypha

The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples:

Suicide Noble?*The apocrypha applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. Second Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword, choosing “rather to die nobly” than to fall into the hands of his enemy. He was not mortally wounded, however, and so threw himself down from a wall and “manfully” died among the crowds (14:41-43).

Magical Potions:*It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17).

Murder Applauded:*The murder of the men of Shechem (Gen. 34), an act of violence which is condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6-7), is commended and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9).

These, along with various other considerations, lead only to the conclusion that the Apocrypha cannot be included in the volume of sacred Scripture.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/111-is-the-apocrypha-inspired-of-god

 

[Josiah]

And [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] - The fact that you can find discrepancies of inclusion, exclusion, nomenclature and understandings does not exclude the inclusion of what the post-Christ non-Christian Jews REVISED the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint to be... I mean, if you want the original, the Septuagint is the Standard, and not the un-Christian re-wriiting of it by the Masoretes... This whole idea of rushing to learn Hebrew to study the "ORIGINAL" Old Testament text is just patently false on its face...

My point is that there is no consensus (historically or currently) on this issue, either WHAT books we are talking about OR on their status/function. YOUR singular, individual, unique denomination has a view (I understand that) BUT it's unique just to it itself alone. The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, etc. all have DIFFERENT views, DIFFERENT books. Speaking of this as one "set" (as you've done) is simply incorrect.





.

 

[Arsenios]

My point is that there is no consensus (historically or currently) on this issue, either WHAT books we are talking about OR on their status/function. YOUR singular, individual, unique denomination has a view (I understand that) BUT it's unique just to it itself alone. The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, etc. all have DIFFERENT views, DIFFERENT books. Speaking of this as one "set" (as you've done) is simply incorrect.

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
An easily conceded point! (eg True! Because there are a lot of issues on this ancient text)

Conversely, can you cede that the LXX, and not the Masoretic OT, is the Christian OT Bible at the time of Christ?


Arsenios

 

[RichWh1]

A lot of quotes from the Old Testament are from the LXX.

 

[Andrew]

False Doctrines:*The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life:

“Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).

The foregoing was a common belief among*heathen peoples, but certainly it is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1).

Praying for the Dead:*The Apocrypha teaches that prayer may be made for the dead:

“Wherefore he made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sins” (2 Maccabees 12:45).

Roman Catholics cite this passage to find support for their dogma of praying for the dead to be released from purgatory, but the effort is vain. Obviously there’s no New Testament passage to buttress the notion.

Alms for Sins:*The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms: “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” (Tobit 12:9).

The Suspect Morality of the Apocrypha

The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples:

Suicide Noble?*The apocrypha applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. Second Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword, choosing “rather to die nobly” than to fall into the hands of his enemy. He was not mortally wounded, however, and so threw himself down from a wall and “manfully” died among the crowds (14:41-43).

Magical Potions:*It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17).

Murder Applauded:*The murder of the men of Shechem (Gen. 34), an act of violence which is condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6-7), is commended and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9).

These, along with various other considerations, lead only to the conclusion that the Apocrypha cannot be included in the volume of sacred Scripture.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/111-is-the-apocrypha-inspired-of-god

There is a double standard when it comes to "difficult passages", some of these in the OT -if they were in the apocrypha, could easily have been dismissed because the passages are strange or difficult.
For instance 1rst Samuel the witch of Endor brings up Samuel from the dead, if that were in the Apocrypha we would say "see, the Apocrypha teaches spiritism, it says that spirit mediums can bring up the dead"
Imagine if the account in the book of Judges about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter were in the Apocrypha "see, the apocrypha teaches human sacrifice"..
1 Kings, God sends his angel to be a lying spirit in the prophets before Ahab, does God really tell his angels to lie? In the Apocrypha we would have called it blasphemous.
Since it's in our OT we simply shrug our shoulders and call them "difficult" passages, but if there are any strange passages in the Apocrypha we call it simply uninspired literature.
About the "purgatory" claim in 2nd Maccabees..
The faithful Jews had just waged war against the greeks who have been trying to force them to forsake the law of Moses and the teachings of God. This small band of faithful Jews are blessed by God and they defeat a larger army of the greeks..
In fact only a few of the Jews die in the battle but when Judas Maccabee and his men go to bury their fallen comrades they discovered that under their tunics each of these men where wearing a pagan amulet for good luck.
They (Judas and his soldiers) realised why these particular men died in battle, so out of love for their comrades Judas and his men took up an offering and sent it to Jerusalem as a sin offering on behalf of the fallen soldiers. The narrator of the book states that this was commendable because it showed that Judas and his men believed in the resurrection of the dead.
He says that if there is no resurrection then there was no reason to ask God to forgive the sin of these dead men, the count however doesn't state that the offering actually benefited these men, it simply states that it was commendable that Judas and his soldiers believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Actually this incident is so insignificant that it is doubtful that anyone took notice of it id it weren't for the fact that the RCC wrongfully used it to teach people that they could get their loved ones out of purgatory by holding masses set for them or by buying indulgence for them in purgatory.
Most of us know that it was that particular practice that kick started the reformation, but when the Catholic church misuses a passage of scripture the answer isn't to throw that book out of the bible, the answer is to point out that the RCC is twisting the scripture.
2nd Maccabees only refers to the resurrection of the dead, purgatory pertains to the state of the dead between death and the resurrection which is an entirely different matter.
Early Christians accepted 2nd Maccabees as part of canon of scripture but they didn't use it as a basis for praying for the dead or that we can help people after they die just like they didn't use 1rst Samuel as a basis to teach that it's alright to go to spirit mediums.

 

[Andrew]

A lot of quotes from the Old Testament are from the LXX.

Very true, and the NT only quotes from four of the OT books, so when someone says "but Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the apocrypha" then the same could be said to the majority of OT books.
Not only do they quote from the Septuagint but they quote it verbatim compared to the later written Masoretic.
Case and point..
"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls [75]." Acts 7:14

Now lets see what the Masoretic tells us..
"And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten [70]" Genesis 46:27

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already [70]" Exodus 1:5

Now lets see what the Septuagint says and see if this version agrees with the NT.

"And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls." Genesis 46:27 LXX

"But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls of Jacob were seventy-five." Exodus 1:5 LXX



The Dead sea scrolls also agrees with the LXX Exodus 1:5 that there were 75 souls total

Now crack open your bible and lets see if Jesus sides with the LXX over the Masoretic..
In Luke 4:18 Jesus quotes Isaiah 61
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" Luke 4:18

Let's find that phrase "and recovering of the sight to the blind" in our Masoretic (KJV +)

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" Isaiah 61:1 (KJV)

?

Now lets look at Isaiah 61 in the LXX (Septuagint) and see if "recovery of site to the blind" is in there...

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;" Isaiah 61:1 (LXX)

So here we see that Jesus was NOT using the flawed Masoretic text hebrew sources but what using the much more accurate original OT hebrew text that the Septuagint was copied from.


(Shout out to Nathan for the awesome homework)

 

[Arsenios]

About the "purgatory" claim in 2nd Maccabees..
The faithful Jews had just waged war against the greeks who have been trying to force them to forsake the law of Moses and the teachings of God. This small band of faithful Jews are blessed by God and they defeat a larger army of the greeks..
In fact only a few of the Jews die in the battle but when Judas Maccabee and his men go to bury their fallen comrades they discovered that under their tunics each of these men where wearing a pagan amulet for good luck.
They (Judas and his soldiers) realised why these particular men died in battle, so out of love for their comrades Judas and his men took up an offering and sent it to Jerusalem as a sin offering on behalf of the fallen soldiers. The narrator of the book states that this was commendable because it showed that Judas and his men believed in the resurrection of the dead.
He says that if there is no resurrection then there was no reason to ask God to forgive the sin of these dead men, the count however doesn't state that the offering actually benefited these men, it simply states that it was commendable that Judas and his soldiers believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Actually this incident is so insignificant that it is doubtful that anyone took notice of it id it weren't for the fact that the RCC wrongfully used it to teach people that they could get their loved ones out of purgatory by holding masses set for them or by buying indulgence for them in purgatory.
Most of us know that it was that particular practice that kick started the reformation, but when the Catholic church misuses a passage of scripture the answer isn't to throw that book out of the bible, the answer is to point out that the RCC is twisting the scripture.
2nd Maccabees only refers to the resurrection of the dead, purgatory pertains to the state of the dead between death and the resurrection which is an entirely different matter.
Early Christians accepted 2nd Maccabees as part of canon of scripture but they didn't use it as a basis for praying for the dead or that we can help people after they die just like they didn't use 1rst Samuel as a basis to teach that it's alright to go to spirit mediums.

What an elegant and compelling refutation of a short-sighted view...
[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION], you are not as dumb as I look!

Not really all that great a compliment...

I mean, who could possibly be THAT dumb!


Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

What an elegant and compelling refutation of a short-sighted view...
[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION], you are not as dumb as I look!

Not really all that great a compliment...

I mean, who could possibly be THAT dumb!


Arsenios

Context says a lot and instead of ignoring this book Protestants should it embrace as scripture, they could even use it to point out to Catholics why the book does NOT imply purgatory or advise prayers for the dead to get them out of purgatory..

 

[Albion]

Context says a lot and instead of ignoring this book Protestants should it embrace as scripture, they could even use it to point out to Catholics why the book does NOT imply purgatory or advise prayers for the dead to get them out of purgatory..

Well then, you already have the Lutherans and Anglicans recommending it as a good read, if not Holy Scripture. And those two represent a huge chunk of the world's Christians. But I hope you are not making your decision about accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture, divine revelation, purely on the basis of the books containing good advice?

If so, there are about a hundred other ones that deserve consideration as well.

 

[Andrew]

Well then, you already have the Lutherans and Anglicans recommending it as a good read, if not Holy Scripture. And those two represent a huge chunk of the world's Christians. But I hope you are not making your decision about accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture, divine revelation, purely on the basis of the books containing good advice?

If so, there are about a hundred other ones that deserve consideration as well.

I didn't say that, I just feel it's one of the reasons protestants don't want to touch it because it preaches purgatory which it doesn't.
I've already shown that Jesus read the original Hebrew text that the septuagint was copied from as well does Stephen the martyr and they both don't agree with the Masoretic sources.
Jesus even celebrated the Maccabees revolt based holiday...Our early church fathers mentions Maccabees, Josephus even acknowledged the Septuagint and praises it.

Yet these books are SECULAR and UNINSPIRED even though early Christians used them and the Church of Rome that Paul wrote to observed them.
Nothing to do with good advice

 

[Andrew]

Well then, you already have the Lutherans and Anglicans recommending it as a good read, if not Holy Scripture. And those two represent a huge chunk of the world's Christians. But I hope you are not making your decision about accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture, divine revelation, purely on the basis of the books containing good advice?

If so, there are about a hundred other ones that deserve consideration as well.

btw I said never said advice, I said that the book of Maccabees does not 'advise' prayers for the dead to get out of purgatory