Did Paul urge us to study the Apocrypha?

[Godsunworthyservant]

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964.

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

 

[Maori Aussie]

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964.

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

I appreciate that there is Jewish history in there, but off the top of my head I am personally not aware of anything especially edifying, or relevant for salvation. But I am happy to be corrected by Christians of any denomination who know more of it than I do...

 

[St_Worm2]

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

Hello Godsunworthyservant, why do you believe that the Jews of the 1st Century held the Apocryphal books to be Holy Scripture? As far as I know, this was never true of any of the Jewish sects back then, nor is it true of the Jews today.

Of the four 1st Century Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots) I would think that the Essenes might have done so, but again, as far as I know, they considered all of those books to be what they referred to them as, apocryphal or pseudepigraphal (non-Biblical/not part of the Jewish Bible or Tanakh).

The Protestant Reformers went along with what the Jews believed concerning these books (figuring that the Jews knew what was and what was not to be included in the OT as Holy Scripture).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - there are LOTS of Jewish learning websites (some basic and some far more scholarly) that discuss the history of the Jewish Bible, and of some of these extra-Biblical works too. Here is an excerpt from one of them and a graphic from another.

Questions & Answers Ask "Rabbi Y"​

What Is the Jewish Approach to the Apocrypha?​

The word “apocrypha” originates from the Greek and Latin words for “secret” or “non-canonical.” It is commonly used to refer to ancient, mostly Second Temple–era works that are “outside” of the Jewish Bible.1​

​

The Apocrypha includes, but is not limited to, works such as Sirach (Ben Sira), Maccabees, Judith, the book of Enoch, Jubilees, the story of Susanna, and Baruch.​

​

Some of these works were known to us all along, and others were recently discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran Caves and in the Cairo Genizah, both of which had preserved ancient Jewish manuscripts.​

Divine Inspiration​

The 24 books of the Bible (Tanach) were canonized by the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (“Men of the Great Assembly”), which included some of the greatest Jewish scholars and leaders of the time, such as Ezra the Scribe, and even the last of the prophets, namely Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. With the death of these prophets, the age of prophecy came to an end.2 Any later works are not considered Divinely inspired, and are therefore not included in the 24 books of the holy Scriptures.3​

​

While none of the books of the Apocrypha are considered to be Divinely inspired and are therefore not included in Jewish scripture, the question of whether they have any value from a Jewish perspective is a bit more nuanced. ~https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm​

​

The 24 Book Tanakh and the 39 Book OT actually contain the exact same Books, they're just grouped and ordered differently. For instance, in the Tanakh, the 12 minor prophets are referred to as "The Twelve", and Samuel and Kings, are not broken down into 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st and 2nd Kings, etc.

​

Lastly, here's a graphic that will show you how the 24 Books in the Jewish Bible/the TaNaKh are grouped and ordered.

~TaNaKh: The 24 Books of the Hebrew Bible [Whiteboard Bible study]

 

[St_Worm2]

On last thing, if you've not seen The God Who Speaks yet, I believe that it will be worth your time, as it is all about the Bible, and it deals with a lot of what we've been discussing here (e.g. some of the reasons why certain Books made it into the OT/NT Canon and others did not). It's a recent, well-made movie-documentary, with beautiful cinematography and a cast of well-known theologians, historians, pastors, linguists, apologists and evangelists.

Make sure to check that the videos are set to 1080 HD, just FYI. Enjoy

HD Trailer

Full HD Movie

--David

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Hello Godsunworthyservant, why do you believe that the Jews of the 1st Century held the Apocryphal books to be Holy Scripture? As far as I know, this was never true of any of the Jewish sects back then, nor is it true of the Jews today.

Of the four 1st Century Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots) I would think that the Essenes might have done so, but again, as far as I know, they considered all of those books to be what they referred to them as, apocryphal or pseudepigraphal (non-Biblical/not part of the Jewish Bible or Tanakh).

The Protestant Reformers went along with what the Jews believed concerning these books (figuring that the Jews knew what was and what was not to be included in the OT as Holy Scripture).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - there are LOTS of Jewish learning websites (some basic and some far more scholarly) that discuss the history of the Jewish Bible, and of some of these extra-Biblical works too. Here is an excerpt from one of them and a graphic from another.

Questions & Answers Ask "Rabbi Y"​

What Is the Jewish Approach to the Apocrypha?​

The word “apocrypha” originates from the Greek and Latin words for “secret” or “non-canonical.” It is commonly used to refer to ancient, mostly Second Temple–era works that are “outside” of the Jewish Bible.1​

​

The Apocrypha includes, but is not limited to, works such as Sirach (Ben Sira), Maccabees, Judith, the book of Enoch, Jubilees, the story of Susanna, and Baruch.​

​

Some of these works were known to us all along, and others were recently discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran Caves and in the Cairo Genizah, both of which had preserved ancient Jewish manuscripts.​

Divine Inspiration​

The 24 books of the Bible (Tanach) were canonized by the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (“Men of the Great Assembly”), which included some of the greatest Jewish scholars and leaders of the time, such as Ezra the Scribe, and even the last of the prophets, namely Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. With the death of these prophets, the age of prophecy came to an end.2 Any later works are not considered Divinely inspired, and are therefore not included in the 24 books of the holy Scriptures.3​

​

While none of the books of the Apocrypha are considered to be Divinely inspired and are therefore not included in Jewish scripture, the question of whether they have any value from a Jewish perspective is a bit more nuanced. ~https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm​

​

The 24 Book Tanakh and the 39 Book OT actually contain the exact same Books, they're just grouped and ordered differently. For instance, in the Tanakh, the 12 minor prophets are referred to as "The Twelve", and Samuel and Kings, are not broken down into 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st and 2nd Kings, etc.

​

Lastly, here's a graphic that will show you how the 24 Books in the Jewish Bible/the TaNaKh are grouped and ordered.

View attachment 363141

~TaNaKh: The 24 Books of the Hebrew Bible [Whiteboard Bible study]

I know that scholars have differing views on the subject. I do know that there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Tanakh was "canonized". Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE), (similar to your claim) while others argue that it was not fixed until the 2nd century CE or even later. Most agree it was a process of debate from around the time of the Hasmonean dynasty until it's final "canonization" sometime in the 2nd century CE. According to James Vandercam of Biblical Archeology, "Between these temporal poles many texts were written, but they rarely address what we would call canonical issues. There are no surviving text before Josephus’s Against Apion (the 90s C.E.) that gives the specific number of texts considered reliable (22) and even he didn't claim that the "canon" was set yet. As a matter of fact his writings seem to indicate it was still in flux and his list was popular consesus. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, published a study by noted scholar, Timothy Lim, called "The formation of the Jewish canon", in which he details the long and arduous process. According to Lim there was much debate about even the inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the canon until around 150CE.

That said, I never claimed the Apocrypha were canonical. Only that they were considered by the Pharisees and the Essene as worthy of study. With that premise, the question is was Paul recommending to Timothy to study them.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The word “apocrypha” originates from the Greek and Latin words for “secret” or “non-canonical.” It is commonly used to refer to ancient, mostly Second Temple–era works that are “outside” of the Jewish Bible.1

On another note, you quote Rabbi Y, (with whom I am not familiar). He says the word apocrypha "originates from the Greek and Latin words for "secret" or "non-canonical". Actually, in the Greek, the word means "secret" or "hidden". Many scholars believe it was used to describe the said books because those who studied them did so in secret for some time so as not to incur the wrath of the Saducees, who decried their validity. The Saducees, while a small group, held much power due to their presence in the Temple. The 1st Century historian Josephus seems to indicate that the Saducees only recognized the Torah as "holy". I have read his description and it's so vague that I believe it was probably only the "apocrypha" that they did not recognize, although many scholars disagree.
The term "canon" in its modern, literary sense, referring to a recognized body of works or texts, was first used by David Ruhnken in 1768, so could not have been a definition of the word "apocrypha" at the time of Paul. It has been a definition only since the 18th century.

 

[St_Worm2]

I never claimed the Apocrypha were canonical. Only that they were considered by the Pharisees and the Essene as worthy of study. With that premise, the question is was Paul recommending to Timothy to study them.

Hello again Godsunworthyservant, perhaps not, but it at least 'seemed' like you were

For instance, you opened the thread by quoting the principal passage in the Bible that declares all of Scripture to be the "breathed" word of God, and then you went on to say this,

"I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, ~including~ the "Apocrypha".

Also..........

I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee, when Paul says "all scripture", does it not follow that would ~include~ the Apocrypha?"

Hopefully you can understand my confusion and why I asked you about it, yes?

Now, I agree that the Apocryphal books are useful, principally as history books, and that they are still very important today, but not as the inspired/breathed word of God, which they are not (in fact, even the RCC, which holds them to be inspired in some sense, does not include them as part of the Canon of Scripture itself, but as a "deuterocanon" instead). So, while Paul ~may~ have recommended them to Timothy for some reason, especially since Timothy was a Hellenistic Jew, we have no evidence that he did.

Also, if the NT had quoted them (like it does the actual OT Books .. even once) then, in all likelihood, the conversation that we are having about them now would probably be very different, but it never does, not even once.

Finally, even if Paul did recommend them to Timothy for study, I'm sure that he would not have done so with the intention that Timothy would use them to preach, teach and/or evangelize with, any more than he would have done so with other extra-Biblical books (like the Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance, or the works of famous Bronze and Iron Age philosophers and thinkers, like Parmenides and Heraclitus, or Socrates and Aristotle) because, again, the Jews NEVER considered the apocryphal books to be inspired Scripture back then, not even in a secondary sense like the RCC does, nor do they do so today.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[Maori Aussie]

Hello again Godsunworthyservant, perhaps not, but it at least 'seemed' like you were

For instance, you opened the thread by quoting the principal passage in the Bible that declares all of Scripture to be the "breathed" word of God, and then you went on to say this,


Also..........


Hopefully you can understand my confusion and why I asked you about it, yes?

Now, I agree that the Apocryphal books are useful, principally as history books, and that they are still very important today, but not as the inspired/breathed word of God, which they are not (in fact, even the RCC, which holds them to be inspired in some sense, does not include them as part of the Canon of Scripture itself, but as a "deuterocanon" instead). So, while Paul ~may~ have recommended them to Timothy for some reason, especially since Timothy was a Hellenistic Jew, we have no evidence that he did.

Also, if the NT had quoted them (like it does the actual OT Books .. even once) then, in all likelihood, the conversation that we are having about them now would probably be very different, but it never does, not even once.

Finally, even if Paul did recommend them to Timothy for study, I'm sure that he would not have done so with the intention that Timothy would use them to preach, teach and/or evangelize with, any more than he would have done so with other extra-Biblical books (like the Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance, or the works of famous Bronze and Iron Age philosophers and thinkers, like Parmenides and Heraclitus, or Socrates and Aristotle) because, again, the Jews NEVER considered the apocryphal books to be inspired Scripture back then, not even in a secondary sense like the RCC does, nor do they do so today.

God bless you!!

--David

Now I feel compelled to research the single? NT reference to the Apocrypha before Tony does.... Oh... Oh.

Did Jesus or The New Testament Authors Quote from The Apocryphal Books?

TLDR Video Short Summary Update: This article was not intended to be a full-throated defense of the canonization of the apocryphal books because I do not personally believe that the entire collection should be canonized. However, due to the content of this post and the reason why most

dustoffthebible.com

 

[St_Worm2]

The 1st Century historian Josephus seems to indicate that the Sadducees only recognized the Torah as "holy". I have read his description and it's so vague that I believe it was probably only the "apocrypha" that they did not recognize, although many scholars disagree.

Yes, as far as I understand, Scripture began and ended with the 5 Books of Moses for the Sadducees. This is why they were so sad, you see

 

[St_Worm2]

Now I feel compelled to research the single? NT reference to the Apocrypha before Tony does....

When you do, be sure to take note of that which DustOffTheBible.com recommended that you take note of early in the article that you posited for us (see the bold type in the excerpt from the article below, for instance).

"It’s often said that the the Apocryphal books are non-canonical because they are not recognized by or quoted by the New Testament (NT) authors or by Jesus. The problem with this claim is that it’s based on ignorance. When I say ignorance I do not mean that the person ignorant but that the statement is founded on a lack of information. The New Testament makes repeated use of the apocryphal books and the theology therein. However, it must be noted that the word “quote” is used here loosely".​

​

--David

 

[Valletta]

Hello again Godsunworthyservant, perhaps not, but it at least 'seemed' like you were

For instance, you opened the thread by quoting the principal passage in the Bible that declares all of Scripture to be the "breathed" word of God, and then you went on to say this,


Also..........


Hopefully you can understand my confusion and why I asked you about it, yes?

Now, I agree that the Apocryphal books are useful, principally as history books, and that they are still very important today, but not as the inspired/breathed word of God, which they are not (in fact, even the RCC, which holds them to be inspired in some sense, does not include them as part of the Canon of Scripture itself, but as a "deuterocanon" instead).

Those books referred to as "deuterocanonical" are fully part of the Biblical canon of the Catholic Church and are deemed as fully God-breathed. The 73 books of the Bible are the liturgical books of the Catholic mass. Before the canon was decided upon in the late 300s (the process spanned centuries) different books were read at mass in different areas. All apocryphal books were rejected, thus a different name is used by Catholics in discussion.

 

[Maori Aussie]

When you do, be sure to take note of that which DustOffTheBible.com recommended that you take note of early in the article that you posited for us (see the bold type in the excerpt from the article below, for instance).

"It’s often said that the the Apocryphal books are non-canonical because they are not recognized by or quoted by the New Testament (NT) authors or by Jesus. The problem with this claim is that it’s based on ignorance. When I say ignorance I do not mean that the person ignorant but that the statement is founded on a lack of information. The New Testament makes repeated use of the apocryphal books and the theology therein. However, it must be noted that the word “quote” is used here loosely".​

​

--David

Actually, I think the author is deliberately overstating their case using the word "quote" here rather than the word "parallelism"...
It irks me but I have a feeling that a letter either Jude, Peter or James refers to a Deuterocanon book once???

 

[Gregory Thompson]

are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

Since the protestant approach to scripture is not equivalent to the original viewpoint, they're not missing much.

That approach and those books do not go well together.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Since the protestant approach to scripture is not equivalent to the original viewpoint, they're not missing much.

That approach and those books do not go well together.

Do you personally know of anything that's in those books that doesn't go well with the Protestant "approach to scripture"?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you personally know of anything that's in those books that doesn't go well with the Protestant "approach to scripture"?

I recall reading one of them that read like an adventure novel, the pagan practices of the fallen hebrews in the apocrypha also is a real eye opener.

To apply what sola scriptura has become in this day an age, to those books would lead to apostasy.

Works fine with non-protestant approaches tho.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, in the Epistle of Jude, it quotes the apocryphal Books of Enoch. Jude 1:14-15 (KJV) "14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." So, we know they were reading them and Jude even thought at least Enoch was worthy of inclusion in his writings.

 

[Maori Aussie]

Now I feel compelled to research the single? NT reference to the Apocrypha before Tony does....

Jude quotes directly from the Book of Enoch, citing a section of 1 Enoch 1:8 that is based on Deuteronomy 33:2. Jude 1:14

 

[St_Worm2]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, in the Epistle of Jude, it quotes the apocryphal Books of Enoch. Jude 1:14-15 (KJV) "14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." So, we know they were reading them and Jude even thought at least Enoch was worthy of inclusion in his writings.

Jude quotes directly from the Book of Enoch, citing a section of 1 Enoch 1:8 that is based on Deuteronomy 33:2. Jude 1:14

Did Jude quote from the Book of Enoch? Probably, but it could have also been quoted from an old, oral tradition, instead (the way that it is written in Jude could lead to either conclusion). It matters not, but what does matter is that we know the truth of it (of 1 Enoch 1:8, that is), since the Holy Spirit included it as part of the Holy Writ.

If memory serves, the Book of Enoch is the earliest of the pseudepigraphal works from the intertestamental period (the 400 or so years between Malachi and Matthew), but I believe that the only church that includes it in its Deuterocanon is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic churches, do not).

Though pretty interesting, this rabbit trail seems to be taking us away from the original intent of the thread, so I'll stop here.

The thing is, @Godsunworthyservant/GUS seemed to be insinuating that the Jews held the apocryphal books to be God-breathed works and therefore, part of the Canon. My main reason for joining the thread was to counter that argument and to point out (about the Jews and the apocryphal books) that what the Jews believed about these books 2,400 years ago they still believe today (that they are important and worthy of study, but not part of the Canon .. nor part of something like the Deuterocanons that some of the older Christian churches have established).

Finally, my last point was that the Protestant Churches followed the Jewish lead in this, believing that they (the Jews) knew what should and what should not to be included in their Bible (the Tanakh or Old Testament).

--David

 

[jas3]

Of the four 1st Century Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots) I would think that the Essenes might have done so, but again, as far as I know, they considered all of those books to be what they referred to them as, apocryphal or pseudepigraphal

Where did the Essenes refer to them as apocryphal or pseudepigraphal?

 

[FireDragon76]

Second Temple Judaism had no fixed canon of Scriptures. However, the Law and the Prophets were considered the most important writings. Much of the "Apocrypha" would have fit into the wisdom literature of the Bible, and echoed similar themes. Some, such as Maccabees, were histories.