Apocrypha or no?

[JacksLadder]

I am trying to decide on if I want a apocrypha in my Bible. What is the apocrypha useful for as I have only read bits and pieces about online? From what I can gather its a bunch of biblical folk tales. This I could be mistaken but I do wish to know if it is useful or not in deepening my faith?

Right now I am currently leaning Calvinist with a Anglican/Orthodox breeze.

 

[cyberlizard]

it's useul as it helps fill in the social, historical and theological gaps from the time of Ezra-Nehemiah till the birth of John the baptist....

make of them what you will. If nothing else they should educate a little on the messianic belief system in place prior to the arrival of Jesus.



Steve

 

[&Abel]

Apocrypha is very important today(it was meant to be "rediscovered" in these times and some contain instructions for the end times[2 esdras primarily])

primarily 2 Esdras and The Book of Enoch

both fill in many holes that scripture purposely leaves

do a search for both on wikipedia and you will find that these were books that were cited as scripture by the ECF and the jews before Jesus arrived

I am also fond of The Epistle of the Apostles but I haven't done an in depth study of it

 

[&Abel]

also The Book of Enoch is quoted in

Jude 1:

14It was also about these men that (AU)Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "(AV)Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
15(AW)to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which (AX)ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."


http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm

The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be
2
living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said --Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3
for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
4
And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
[And appear from His camp]
And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens. 5
And all shall be smitten with fear
And the Watchers shall quake,
And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. 6
And the high mountains shall be shaken,
And the high hills shall be made low,
And shall melt like wax before the flame. 7
And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder,
And all that is upon the earth shall perish,
And there shall be a judgement upon all (men). 8
But with the righteous He will make peace,
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them. And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall be prospered,
And they shall all be blessed.
And He will help them all,
And light shall appear unto them,
And He will make peace with them.

9
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

 

[JacksLadder]

Apocrypha is very important today(it was meant to be "rediscovered" in these times and some contain instructions for the end times[2 esdras primarily])

primarily 2 Esdras and The Book of Enoch

both fill in many holes that scripture purposely leaves

do a search for both on wikipedia and you will find that these were books that were cited as scripture by the ECF and the jews before Jesus arrived

I am also found of The Epistle of the Apostles but I haven't done an in depth study of it

Thanks for the info I never heard about the "rediscovered" part before. I found a Good News Translation Bible online with it in it that is pretty inexpensive.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I am trying to decide on if I want a apocrypha in my Bible. What is the apocrypha useful for as I have only read bits and pieces about online? From what I can gather its a bunch of biblical folk tales. This I could be mistaken but I do wish to know if it is useful or not in deepening my faith?

Right now I am currently leaning Calvinist with a Anglican/Orthodox breeze.

The majority of Christianity accepts 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith as part of the Old Testament canon. They are not "apocrypha", because that word refers to non-canonical writings. They are scripture.

And that is the very reason that you want them in your Bible, because they ARE scripture.

Read this article: LINK

Try reading this article too: LINK

 

[JacksLadder]

The majority of Christianity accepts 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith as part of the Old Testament canon. They are not "apocrypha", because that word refers to non-canonical writings. They are scripture.

And that is the very reason that you want them in your Bible, because they ARE scripture.

Read this article: LINK

Try reading this article too: LINK

Interesting how the Jewish sects did not agree even on a OT cannon! Scripture still is my only tradition but it is interesting to see a more complete picture of it!

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

The majority of Christianity accepts 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith as part of the Old Testament canon. They are not "apocrypha", because that word refers to non-canonical writings. They are scripture.

And that is the very reason that you want them in your Bible, because they ARE scripture.

Read this article: LINK

Try reading this article too: LINK

Interesting how the Jewish sects did not agree even on a OT cannon! Scripture still is my only tradition but it is interesting to see a more complete picture of it!

I would suggest that you do not fall into Martin Luther's error. He too was concerned with what the Rabbis considered to be canonical. The problem with that is that we do not follow the Rabbis: We follow the Apostles. It is the Apostles who have the Christ-given authority to teach, not the Rabbis.

We are "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Catholic and Pharisaical Church"

 

[Ramon96]

I would suggest that you do not fall into Martin Luther's error. He too was concerned with what the Rabbis considered to be canonical. The problem with that is that we do not follow the Rabbis: We follow the Apostles. It is the Apostles who have the Christ-given authority to teach, not the Rabbis.

We are "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Catholic and Pharisaical Church"

Yes,

And not all Jews, ancient and modern, reject these books.The Ethiopian Jews still accept them as Scriptures (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). And those who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (The Septuagint, which Christ and the Holy Apostles rely on more than the Hebrew version) thought it was! Jews never had a Bible Canon, even in Jesus time there was disagreement on what was "Scriptures". Only in a council of Jarmina (90AD) did some Jews officially declare there canon, and even then it was not blinding to the entire Jewish community, as the Ethiopian Jews decided to keep the deuterocanonical books in there canon, even to this day. It is interesting Protestants main argument is that "Jews didn't accept them". First, not every Jews, ancient and modern, reject them. Second, we do not follow what some Christ-hated Jews said. There have no authority in the Church. The question to most Protestants is not "Why do you listen to Jews instead of Christ' Church for the Canon of Scriptures?" but "Why do you listen to some Jewish sects while ignoring other Jewish sects that did and still accept the deuterocanonical books?".

Jacksladder you should study these books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, additions to Esther, Daniel, and Psalms [Psalm 151], and Prayer of Manasseh ) . Why? For 1500 years they was accepted by Christians. In fact, even Renowed Protestant Scholars and Theologians admits this! Read J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines" (pg. 53), Brenton (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, pg 1), Thomas C. Oden (Ancient Christian Commentary). The Majority of Christians today accept them as Scriptures (Catholics [Latin/East), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and some Protestants accept them as well).

We Orthodox accept 3 Maccbess (4 Maccbess is accepted by the Gregorian Orthodox Church), 1 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Vulgate), 2 Esdras (4 Esdras in the Vulgate, accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church), Psalm 151, and Prayer of Manasseh. These books and additions are not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

All the Ancient Apostolic Churches accept Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther, Daniel as Scriptures. All the Ancient Apostolic Churches of the East accept 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabess, Prayer of Manesseh, Psalms 151 as Canonical Scriptures.

In IC.XC,
Ramon.

 

[JacksLadder]

We are "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Catholic and Pharisaical Church"

I will remember that.

 

[JacksLadder]

Yes,

And not all Jews, ancient and modern, reject these books.The Ethiopian Jews still accept them as Scriptures (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). And those who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (The Septuagint, which Christ and the Holy Apostles rely on more than the Hebrew version) thought it was! Jews never had a Bible Canon, even in Jesus time there was disagreement on what was "Scriptures". Only in a council of Jarmina (90AD) did some Jews officially declare there canon, and even then it was not blinding to the entire Jewish community, as the Ethiopian Jews decided to keep the deuterocanonical books in there canon, even to this day. It is interesting Protestants main argument is that "Jews didn't accept them". First, not every Jews, ancient and modern, reject them. Second, we do not follow what some Christ-hated Jews said. There have no authority in the Church. The question to most Protestants is not "Why do you listen to Jews instead of Christ' Church for the Canon of Scriptures?" but "Why do you listen to some Jewish sects while ignoring other Jewish sects that did and still accept the deuterocanonical books?".

Jacksladder you should study these books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, additions to Esther, Daniel, and Psalms [Psalm 151], and Prayer of Manasseh ) . Why? For 1500 years they was accepted by Christians. In fact, even Renowed Protestant Scholars and Theologians admits this! Read J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines" (pg. 53), Brenton (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, pg 1), Thomas C. Oden (Ancient Christian Commentary). The Majority of Christians today accept them as Scriptures (Catholics [Latin/East), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and some Protestants accept them as well).

We Orthodox accept 3 Maccbess (4 Maccbess is accepted by the Gregorian Orthodox Church), 1 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Vulgate), 2 Esdras (4 Esdras in the Vulgate, accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church), Psalm 151, and Prayer of Manasseh. These books and additions are not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

All the Ancient Apostolic Churches accept Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther, Daniel as Scriptures. All the Ancient Apostolic Churches of the East accept 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabess, Prayer of Manesseh, Psalms 151 as Canonical Scriptures.

In IC.XC,
Ramon.

Thanks for the info

 

[wildboar]

The KJV was originally published with the Apocrypha and all German Lutheran Bibles contained the Apocrypha. I think it is good to have on hand while realizing that Christians have debated which books should be included throughout Christian history. Jerome did not want to include them in the Vulgate but was pressured to do so. There are disputed New Testament books as well including James, Revelation, etc. I don't really see a problem with their inclusion so long as they are given their proper place and disputed books are not used as the sole basis for the establishment of a teaching and they are interpreted through the lens of the undisputed books.

A generally good guideline for interpreting Scripture is found in the Canonical order itself. Matthew should be the lens through which the Gospels are interpreted. The Gospels are the lens through which the rest of the New Testament should be interpreted. Romans is the lens through which the Epistles should be interpreted. The entire NT is the lens through which the OT should be interpreted and the Apocrypha would then stand last and be interpreted by everything else. Even modern Roman Catholic scholarship seems to acknowledge the disputed OT books as deuterocanonical even though this doesn't seem supported by Trent which for the first time tried to establish a definite canon.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Cheese it everyone.
A Lutheran is in the house.

(just kidding with ya')

 

[JacksLadder]

O.k. you guys convinced me. I just ordered a Good News Bible with the Apocrypha in it.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

O.k. you guys convinced me. I just ordered a Good News Bible with the Apocrypha in it.

I think I've seen that one. Is it purple?

Now we just need you to quit saying "apocrypha" and start saying "deuterocanonicals"

 

[JacksLadder]

Good News Translation Bible with Deuterocanonicals/ Apocrypha and Imprimatur.

I guess the Good News Translation is used by both Protestans and Catholics.

 

[JHM]

Personally I read any of the ancient books I can get ahold of. One has to judge them on their merits; but generally I have found them to be what I consider to be canonical. The "Testament of Levi" speaks of "Fire and Ice", (think nuclear winter); the Book of Jasher gives a somewhat more detailed account of the attempt by "Yahweh" to kill Moses; making it clear that this was not GOD; but rather the Destroying Angel. The Book of Adam and Eve describes a manifestation of "God" which endlessly stands guard at one place, where Adam has built an alter to it, and puts sacrifices on that alter which are consumed by a flame leaping out from the Manifestation of "God", (That one fits in nicely with "The Fallen Angels Code" which I discovered when researching the term "Nephilim").The various books of Enoch are fundamental to understanding what the Fallen Angels did; and also understanding the "Great Flood" in scientific terms. (The year went from 360 days to 365 days and the Earth took up its present 23.5 degree inclination from the verticle at that time.) My guess is it got hit by an asteroid which struck in the ocean and penetrated the crust, there by "Opening the fountains of the deep" and bringing on the rains of the flood by causing a large segment of the oceans to literally boil, hence evaporation and rain.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Good News Translation Bible with Deuterocanonicals/ Apocrypha and Imprimatur.

I guess the Good News Translation is used by both Protestans and Catholics.

Hey, as long as you're getting a Bible with all 72 books in it, and since it has an Imprimatur, you might as well go whole hog and get a better translation. I highly suggest the RSVCE.

 

[JHM]

Not sure what the "CE" is but the Revised Standard is GOOD. The New Revised Standard is Better. The Best I have seen is the Jerusalem, though I don't know if you can get it with complete apocrypha.

 

[wildboar]

I prefer the NKJV overall but I do like my RSV for the deuterocanonicals. But I'm really looking forward to the EOB.