The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

[NathanH83]

I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

 

[Andrew]

I say if it was good enough to deserve a painstaking Hebrew to Greek translation for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jew -and early Christian fathers and congregations held it as inspired -then it's good enough for me.
Sadly through later rejection from post NT Jews (Non Christian) the scrolls were suddenly taken out of circulation [note: those writings would be the youngest of the OT books, written sometime within the 400 years before the birth of Christ, commonly dubbed as the 400 years of silence]
And then sometime later a latin translator translated these books but since they were considered obscure they were placed in a special category called the Apocryphal books...
I consider them canon and they would do more good than harm by adding it to protestant selection (canon), for instance if Lutherans were to accept them they could have properly interpreted and debunked the Catholic dogma of purgatory (it's not too late you can still do it) that would have made the RCC repent of this dogma the same way they stopped indulgence by challenging the church, exterminating future progenitors who hang on the idea of Jesus not suffering enough for our sins . The books also reference things such as 'demons' which if you hadn't noticed only first appeared when Jesus speaks of them, if you knew the OT verbatim WITHOUT these "extra" books you would be confused and dumbfounded and would wonder what Jesus was talking about.
There are many others concerning prophesy and objections to doctrine such as OSAS and also concerning election and predestination..
The the greek Septuagint was verified canon, how can something be verified as inspiration and then later rejected? Isn't that kind of like taking away from Gods words?
What was left out of the Septuagint but added to Catholic bibles as divine is debatable but I believe something was afoot and obviously the Masoretic text has number typos in genealogy when compared to the more accurate Septuagint (which Jesus quotes from verbatim compared to the sloppy Masoretic text that was compiled from later scrolls and differ from the earlier Septuagint sources)
It's a fascinating topic non the less..

 

[Tigger]

I like the apocryphal books for their historical qualities but they need to be segregated for doctrinal reasons.

 

[NewCreation435]

I don't really know much about it since i spend my time reading what I know is God's Word verses what I have doubts about

 

[Albion]

I say if it was good enough to deserve a painstaking Hebrew to Greek translation for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jew -and early Christian fathers and congregations held it as inspired -then it's good enough for me.

All right, but the problem was that only some of them did. The Jews of the Holy Land and the Jews of everywhere else differed on whether or not these books were inspired, and that carried over to the Christian Church which finally decided to put them into the Bible, but only provisionally. Finally, the Lutherans and Anglicans eliminated them from the Bible but still ordered them to be read and the Catholic Church itself kicked out some of the Apocrypha in response, although not all of those books. And then we have the other problem, which is that these are not like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, being essentially morality tales, and no doctrine is dependent upon what it written in them.

 

[Lamb]

The Apocrypha isn't just one book but different writings written during different periods. Which ones do you suggest should belong in the bible and why do you believe them to be divinely inspired?

 

[Josiah]

I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

WHICH Apocrypha?


Would you please specifically LIST the books you regard as "Apocrypha" and by deletion, which you do not.

 

[Josiah]

Finally, the Lutherans and Anglicans eliminated them from the Bible but still ordered them to be read and the Catholic Church itself kicked out some of the Apocrypha in response, although not all of those books. And then we have the other problem, which is that these are not like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, being essentially morality tales, and no doctrine is dependent upon what it written in them.

Um..... not exactly.....


Functionally..... on a practical level.... you are correct. But unlike the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism has never taken a dogmatic stand here. It is important to note that the Lutheran Confessions VERY MUCH ON PURPOSE do not list which books we regard as canonical, the Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about ANY Deuterocanonical book or ANYONE'S set of them (there are countless DIFFERENT "sets" accepted or unaccepted, officially or otherwise). Luther himself - PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY - including some in his German translation (one MORE than the RCC has in its current unique tome) and shared HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL opinion that these books are good to read and of much value but not to be used "canonically" that is as a rule for THEOLOGY, a common view in his time and largely formalized in the Anglican Church (albeit applied to more books), but I'd add, that NEVER has been affirmed by Lutheranism. Officially, Lutheranism is SILENT on this whole issue. The reality that our Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about any of this is telling.


Now, it IS true, many of the 300+ Lutheran denominations have officially embraced 66 books WHILE BEING SILENT about the status of any others. Frankly, I'm not sure if my synod has or has not done that, but I understand some have. But that would be a denominational thing and not a generality of Lutheranism (we look exclusively to the Lutheran Confessions for that). And it needs to be noted that officially embracing 66 does not mean officially rejecting others (although that's probably a reasonable conclusion in terms of practice). In PRACTICE, Lutheranism is functionally similar to the Anglican Communion (so your comment is fine) but not officially.


On a personal note, in my Catholic years, these books OCCASIONALLY came up in the lectionary. Some Lutheran lectionaries included them, too. But otherwise, it seemed to me, Catholics gave them no notice. I recall no sermons from anything in them, no Bible studies on them, no mention of anything in them from any Catholic teacher. Odd... the first time I read some and participated in the formal Bible Study on them was after I became a Lutheran.




.

 

[Albion]

Functionally..... on a practical level.... you are correct. But unlike the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism has never taken a dogmatic stand here. It is critical to note that the Lutheran Confessions VERY MUCH ON PURPOSE do not list which books we regard as canonical, the Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about ANY Deuterocanonical book or ANYONE'S set of them (there are countless DIFFERENT "sets" accepted or unaccepted, officially or otherwise). Luther himself - PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY - including some in his German translation (one MORE than the RCC has its current unique tome) and shared HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL opinion that these books are good to read and of much value but not to be used "canonically" ...

That, I guess, is what I was thinking of.

In PRACTICE, Lutheranism is functionally is virtually identical to the Anglican Communion (so your comment is fine) but not officially.

oooh, ick. "Anglican Communion." Among us, that's like me speaking of the ELCA as if it were your church and the all-in-all of Lutheranism. LOL

...it seemed to me, Catholics gave them no notice. I recall no sermons from anything in them, no Bible studies on them, no mention of anything in them from any Catholic teacher. Odd... the first time I read some and participated in the formal Bible Study on them was after I became a Lutheran.

Yes. I agree. Despite the defiant stands that Catholic apologists often take with regard to the Apocrypha, the church itself mentions them almost never.

 

[Arsenios]

I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible.
Other people say that it's doesn't.
What do you say?

Well, you can have a complete Bible...

Or the depleted version...

Original KJV included them...

Puritans didn't like them...

So if you prefer a partial Bible to a complete Bible...

You can "Puritanize" your complete Bible from their presence...

And rest self assured in your Puritanization...

Like you, I prefer the complete Bible...

And I fear the incomplete one...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Well, you can have a complete Bible...

Or the depleted version...

Original KJV included them...

Puritans didn't like them...

They were included in the published edition, BUT NOT as inspired writings like the rest of the Bible.

 

[Arsenios]

They were included in the published edition, BUT NOT as inspired writings like the rest of the Bible.

Does someone say who inspired them?

And why?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

them?

What "them?"


List for us the "them." What exactly is and is not "them?" Psalm 151? Psalm 152? 4 Maccabees? List the full content of "them" (and perhaps what is not a "them").

Then tell us according to whom? Your denomination? The Syrian Orthodox Church? The Coptic Church? The Anglican Church? The Catholic Church? According to whom?



.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

I say it should be in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments. Right where Luther put them when he translated the Bible into German.

 

[Arsenios]

What "them?"


List for us the "them."

What exactly is and is not "them?"

Psalm 151? Psalm 152? 4 Maccabees?

List the full content of "them"

(and perhaps what is not a "them").

Then tell us according to whom?

Your denomination?

The Syrian Orthodox Church?

The Coptic Church?

The Anglican Church?

The Catholic Church?

According to whom?
.

According to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of your Creed...

Does this list help?

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Esther
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Septuagint Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Septuagint prologue, Vulgate Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Septuagint epilogue, Vulgate Daniel 14)
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
3 Maccabees
Psalm 151

Which of these do you wish to remove from the Bible?

And on what [non-EOC] basis?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

According to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of your Creed...

Does this list help?

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Esther
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Septuagint Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Septuagint prologue, Vulgate Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Septuagint epilogue, Vulgate Daniel 14)
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
3 Maccabees
Psalm 151

Ah. A totally unique list. The RCC disagrees with it. The Anglican Church disagrees with it. In fact, none but your one singular denomination agrees with that list. What about 4 Maccabees accepted by the Georgian Orthodox Church? What about Psalm 152?

 

[Andrew]

All right, but the problem was that only some of them did. The Jews of the Holy Land and the Jews of everywhere else differed on whether or not these books were inspired, and that carried over to the Christian Church which finally decided to put them into the Bible, but only provisionally. Finally, the Lutherans and Anglicans eliminated them from the Bible but still ordered them to be read and the Catholic Church itself kicked out some of the Apocrypha in response, although not all of those books. And then we have the other problem, which is that these are not like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, being essentially morality tales, and no doctrine is dependent upon what it written in them.

Scribes canonized them, that is a Jewish rabbinic sect! Not just anything can be added to canon, a scribe must bathe before writing and everytime the title of GOD was written they had to bathe prior to writing it again and again and again for each time. They took these books just as seriously as all the other books.
Again I address that these books were not only the 'latest' additions prior to Christ's earthly ministry, but were also dropped by non Christian Jews AFTER Christ's earthly ministry, so these scrolls were short lived and were temporarily circulated.. however the EAST orthodox Catholics held on to them with fervor as divinely inspired just as all the rest of the Holy books without question. We know it reached the greek speaking Hebrew audience and even Jesus quotes verbatim from books in that Septuagint cannon (more verbatim than the later Masoretic text which the KJV bibles and other common versions come from).

Next, why would anything BUT divine scripture be "ordered" to be read?
They might not be as outstanding other books in the bible but that doesn't mean that they are of no value, the wisdom books are similar to proverbs, bel and the dragon is message to the assembly concerning deceptions of false priest and idolatry. Should we trash proverbs since it's essentially a "morality" book?.. Others give us the origins and outlining of Jewish traditions that are not mentioned in the previous OT books but ARE mentioned by the Apostles, now as gentiles we shrug our shoulders to Jewish customs but when the Apostles mention them and these books were canonized by the scribes and translated to greek (first non Hebrew translation for Hebrews) it should really make you wonder.
They may not be as important than the NT saving gospel, the OT ended with the prophets and it's a good clean cut and dry between the OT and the NT, but it still stands as historically testimony of Gods peoples who were divinely inspired during this break between prophesy of the first coming and the first coming including more prophesy of the second coming by revelation of Christ and so forth, my hunch is that the reason these books were dropped was because Jesus had infuriated the Christ rejecting Jews and were not going to do us a favor by maintaining the post Isiah prophesy canon, they instead began re-maintaining their old Babylonian Talmudic writings and that's where they are today. The Talmud now includes the most blasphemous and horrifying "divine" literature against our Lord and Savior.. but again I believe the Septuagint holds to original transcriptions of the OT that Jesus read compared to the later Masoretic sources that hold many flaws including the absence of the additional books that were known and studied by Hebrews pre-Christian era.

 

[Andrew]

Ah. A totally unique list. The RCC disagrees with it. The Anglican Church disagrees with it. In fact, none but your one singular denomination agrees with that list. What about 4 Maccabees accepted by the Georgian Orthodox Church? What about Psalm 152?

What about 2nd Esdras? It seems to refer directly to the Septuagint yet 2nd Esdras is not included in the Septuagint yet again protestants and non protestants at the time and even now (RCC AND EOC) include it as Apocryphal.. here's where it gets interesting..

"Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people." (2 Esdras 14:45–46 RSV; 4 Ezra 12:45–46)

Within the 4th Esdras (2nd Esdras) there is a bold prophesy that probably would leave even these "wise Jews" scratching their head...

7:28, 2 esdras

"For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years. After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life. And the world shall be turned into the old silence seven days, like as in the former judgments: so that no man shall remain. And after seven days the world, that yet awaketh not, shall be raised up, and that shall die that is corrupt And the earth shall restore those that are asleep in her, and so shall the dust those that dwell in silence, and the secret places shall deliver those souls that were committed unto them. And the most High shall appear upon the seat of judgment, and misery shall pass away, and the long suffering shall have an end:* But judgment only shall remain, truth shall stand, and faith shall wax strong:*And the work shall follow, and the reward shall be shewed, and the good deeds shall be of force, and wicked deeds shall bear no rule.*Then said I, Abraham prayed first for the Sodomites, and Moses for the fathers that sinned in the wilderness:*And Jesus after him for Israel in the time of Achan: And Samuel and David for the destruction: and Solomon for them that should come to the sanctuary:"

If you consider the context of the "make not public..." verses as fact, this would mean that the prophet was instructed to keep hidden this specific revelation aside from already keeping the Septuagint (70) in close quarters (pre Christian Scribes and devotees, humble Jews in Gods eye kept hidden from the hard hearted sects of Judaism).. this could play a role in why only the "Wise" could quote verbatim and mention customs that no other OT books could (Jesus, disciples and Apostles), explaining why these books (70) were so "secret" just before the first coming of the Lord.

I find this hypothesis to be practical for a time, Revelation speaks of keeping the women hidden and we know that God hides things for a time and reveals them later.

What if there were truth to this? Is it not suspicious at all why the books became obscure? Was the bold prophesy in a few verses a good reason to hide away such a vast amount of books?

We may never know for certain because God works in mysterious ways that cannot be explained, but I don't buy that the books were dropped because they were non inspired and stupid books when early Christians (Jew and Gentile) referenced them and accepted them as inspired.

The scribes and pharisees might have wanted to sweep the Septuagint under the rug after they stumbled across the prophesy of Christ written in thereof and seeing that the prophesy came true -they forbade them along with the NT and that was the end of that...?

 

[NathanH83]

WHICH Apocrypha?


Would you please specifically LIST the books you regard as "Apocrypha" and by deletion, which you do not.

Well, the Apocryphal books in the King James for sure. But the Greek Septuagint also consisted of 3 and 4 Maccabees.

 

[NathanH83]

Well, you can have a complete Bible...

Or the depleted version...

Original KJV included them...

Puritans didn't like them...

So if you prefer a partial Bible to a complete Bible...

You can "Puritanize" your complete Bible from their presence...

And rest self assured in your Puritanization...

Like you, I prefer the complete Bible...

And I fear the incomplete one...


Arsenios

Thanks. I also prefer a complete Bible.