Did Paul urge us to study the Apocrypha?

[St_Worm2]

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

Hello Jas3, I haven't read any source materials from the Essenes themselves, what I said here was based on what I was taught, years ago, along with what various Jewish learning sites have to say about these books both historically and today, sites that I went to again recently to make sure that what I remembered about the intertestamental books from the Jewish POV was correct (before posting in this thread).

I did mention that if any of the 1st Century Jewish sects considered them to be part of the Holy Writ, it seemed to me that it would have been the Essenes, but they never did.

That said, I believe that they all considered them to be important for many reasons, especially historically (just like the Jews do today), but not binding on heart/conscience like the God-breathed Holy Scriptures are.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[jas3]

Hello Jas3, I haven't read any source materials from the Essenes themselves, what I said here was based on what I was taught, years ago, along with what various Jewish learning sites have to say about these books both historically and today, sites that I went to again recently to make sure that what I remembered about the intertestamental books from the Jewish POV was correct (before posting in this thread).

So this would seem to be an extrapolation then. All we really know about the Essenes is that they made copies of certain writings; we don't have, to my knowledge, any commentary from the Essenes on their beliefs about the canonical status of any of these writings. We can only infer the importance they placed on these writings by the fact that they were considered important enough to be worth copying, and perhaps we could tell something about the relative importance of one book to another if there were many copies of one book and only a few of another, but I don't think we could reasonably come to a conclusion as precise as some books being "important, but not part of Holy Writ" just based on that evidence.

 

[JSRG]

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.

The Catholic Church considers the "deuterocanon" to be Scripture. The term deuterocanon does not imply any lesser canonical status in Catholicism, but is rather a word of convenience to denote those books that the Catholic Church accepts as canon but are not in the standard Protestant canon, as well as differentiating them from works called "apocrypha" that are in neither the Catholic canon nor the standard Protestant canon.

 

[St_Worm2]

So this would seem to be an extrapolation then.

Hello again Jas3, I think that it's probably a bit more than that, unless we take the position that the Jews know little to nothing about their own books or history.

That the Jewish sects did not accept these books as canonical or include them in the Hebrew Bible is hardly new news. The Septuagint included them, for the most part anyway, though interestingly, we do possess a number of Septuagint codices that do not.

There's also the church to consider, since we know that the early church did not begin to consider them to be canonical until at least AD 200. I believe that the move to include them followed Jerome's choice to include them in his Bible (even though he did not personally believe that they should be considered as canonical either).

Finally, the Reformers also rejected them (as canonical) because of 1. doctrinal and theological concerns, but also, in large part, because 2. they knew that the Jews did not hold them to be canonical (though many of the Reformers continued to include some of them in their Bibles as important, non-canonical additions, just like we continue to do today in many of our Bibles, including Protestant Bibles).

--David

 

[jas3]

Hello again Jas3, I think that it's probably a bit more than that, unless we take the position that the Jews know little to nothing about their own books or history.

Modern Rabbinical Jews don't have access to any knowledge about Second Temple Judaism that we don't.

That the Jewish sects did not accept these books as canonical or include them in the Hebrew Bible is hardly new news.

The Hebrew Bible was standardized after the Resurrection and the end of Second Temple Judaism, so it doesn't really have any bearing on what 1st century Jews considered to be Scripture.

The Septuagint included them, for the most part anyway, though interestingly, we do possess a number of Septuagint codices that do not.

The fact that there are any codices that include them, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther that aren't present in the Masoretic Text, indicates that at least some Jews considered these books to be Scripture.

There's also the church to consider, since we know that the early church did not begin to consider them to be canonical until at least AD 200.

Do we? What's your source on that?

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

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

You're reading between the lines. That's not what I said. I said that certain Jewish sects studied them and considered them "scripture". There was no approved "canon" until at the earliest during the Hasmonean dynasty between 140-40BCE with many scholars arguing it wasn't fixed until the 2nd century CE. My only question is was Paul exhorting Timothy to study the apocryphal books.

 

[Valletta]

You're reading between the lines. That's not what I said. I said that certain Jewish sects studied them and considered them "scripture". There was no approved "canon" until at the earliest during the Hasmonean dynasty between 140-40BCE with many scholars arguing it wasn't fixed until the 2nd century CE. My only question is was Paul exhorting Timothy to study the apocryphal books.

The Church chose those books from the Greek Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from.

 

[DragonFox91]

In regards to OP yes, we are not to be ignorant of false teachings & history.

I think the doctrine the Apocrypha establishes is quote-mining it. It doesn't appear early church follow those doctrines regardless

 

[Valletta]

In regards to OP yes, we are not to be ignorant of false teachings & history.

I think the doctrine the Apocrypha establishes is quote-mining it. It doesn't appear early church follow those doctrines regardless

I am unaware of any doctrine in the Catholic Church that was established by the Deuterocanonicals. Certainly, like the rest of the Bible, those books document and substantiate doctrine.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

I am unaware of any doctrine in the Catholic Church that was established by the Deuterocanonicals. Certainly, like the rest of the Bible, those books document and substantiate doctrine.

Ditto, Protestant doctrine. From what I've read there's really no new doctrine in OT "Deuterocanonicals". There are however some interesting new historical facts that have no bearing on doctrine and some reiteration of existing doctrine.

 

[DragonFox91]

I'm not sure. We'll cite the NT & even the OT & when that's insufficient, the Catholics will fall back on the Apocrypha. Since the OT & NT are both contradicting their doctrine, they have to pull it from somewhere else. It can't contradict

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

I'm not sure. We'll cite the NT & even the OT & when that's insufficient, the Catholics will fall back on the Apocrypha. Since the OT & NT are both contradicting their doctrine, they have to pull it from somewhere else. It can't contradict

And the beat goes on. Most churches these days have to jump through literary and theological hoops to defend their church doctrine. As for the Apocrypha, I believe that if Paul was indeed suggesting that Timothy study it, he certainly didn't recommend basing church doctrine on it.

 

[Valletta]

I'm not sure. We'll cite the NT & even the OT & when that's insufficient, the Catholics will fall back on the Apocrypha. Since the OT & NT are both contradicting their doctrine, they have to pull it from somewhere else. It can't contradict

There is no "fall back" for Catholics on any particular books. Realize that the process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries, and that the canon of the Bible was not established until the late 300s. It wasn't until reformation times that Protestants dropped seven books from the Bible. As to doctrine, when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, any potential text that did not fully support Catholic doctrine was rejected.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

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).

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

I have been told that the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, is their Canon. Even Psalms and the Prophets are not considered infallible by some number of Jews, I have been told. In any case, I would not go by what unbelievers who are Jews might say. considering how they have handled Jesus > there is no telling how they might be handling anything else.

We can only infer the importance they placed on these writings by the fact that they were considered important enough to be worth copying,

I, of course, did not get to know the Essenes. So, I would not know how really they understood God and His word so they could know which are and which are not Scriptures.

the Jews did not hold them to be canonical (though many of the Reformers continued to include some of them in their Bibles as important, non-canonical additions, just like we continue to do today in many of our Bibles, including Protestant Bibles).

Paul says "scriptures" are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". This is in 2 Timothy 3:16. So, how are people doing with the Apocrypha, to use it for doctrine and reproof and correction and "instruction in righteousness"?

Of course, ones holding to the non-apocryphal Bible might not be getting much about doctrine and reproof and correction and instruction in righteousness. But whatever are the Scriptures is so profitable.

Any scripture can be used by God to bring us to grow in Jesus, to become of the character of God's love in us, and to relate as His family . . . in submission to Him having us do His own love meaning of His word.

certain Jewish sects studied them and considered them "scripture". There was no approved "canon" until at the earliest during the Hasmonean dynasty between 140-40BCE with many scholars arguing it wasn't fixed until the 2nd century CE. My only question is was Paul exhorting Timothy to study the apocryphal books.

It appears that some number of Jews were not correct, including in how they handled Jesus. So, what some number of them considered to be Scripture might be questionable.

My opinion is God's word confirms that Paul means the Torah, Psalms, and the Prophets.

After all, Jesus Himself says >

"Then He said to them, 'These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.'" (Luke 24:44)

And Philip said >

"We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law, and also the Prophets, wrote---Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (in John 1:45)

As for the Apocrypha, I believe that if Paul was indeed suggesting that Timothy study it, he certainly didn't recommend basing church doctrine on it.

There would be a matter of how much Timothy should give attention to the Apocrypha . . . versus studying the Law of Moses and Psalms and the Prophets.

And our Apostle Paul says >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So, each of us is commanded, I would say, to test what is good. And I would say the most reliable way to test any thing is to submit to God and obey where He guides our attention; therefore, make sure with God Himself, who knows at any moment what is good . . . His will for us to do with Him. And I find that any part of God's word can be used by God to help us find out how to love . . . in sharing with Him. Because every scripture comes from God's heart of love, every scripture has His love meaning.

So, not only do we need to know which writings are God's word, but also we need to get it the way God means it.

And, whatever really is God's word, He guarantees that His word >

"shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."
(in Isaiah 55:11)

So we need, then, to depend on God Himself to do His meaning of whatever is His word.

Here is what Paul has used God's word to do >

"Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily." (Colossians 1:28-29)

So . . . the scriptures God desires for us to use are for ministering for people to be perfected in Jesus. And we do this, in sharing with God, by submitting to how He in us works us to so minister. This process includes prayer and example.

So . . . to answer to your question of if we will be left out or miss the boat, by not reading the Apocrypha . . . Jesus did not make this "required reading", did He . . . anywhere in His recorded sayings?? Neither did Paul. But we are told to test. However, I offer that testing includes testing how much attention should go to something; and I suspect there are ones who need to test how much attention needs to go to justifying their own groups, versus attending to what helps us to be "conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

Ones can be so busy with comparing themselves with others and congratulating their own selves. But how are we becoming . . . in comparison with Jesus?

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

So . . . to answer to your question of if we will be left out or miss the boat, by not reading the Apocrypha

You make some good points, but I never suggested we would be somehow left out or miss the boat by not reading the Apocrypha, but simply asked the question, did Paul urge Timothy (and us) to read them.

 

[com7fy8]

You make some good points, but I never suggested we would be somehow left out or miss the boat by not reading the Apocrypha, but simply asked the question, did Paul urge Timothy (and us) to read them.

But you did say >

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?

And ones understand that if we reject something which is God's word . . . big mistake.

Also, if Paul urges us to read God's word, and in case he means the Apocrypha included . . . this is God's command . . . not optional reading.

So, there is the issue > if I deny something which is God's word, am I missing the boat? This is an issue, whether this is what you mean, or not.

You did not suggest we would be, but you *asked* "if"

And in case I were to tell some number of Bible claiming people that I reject some books of Paul . . . they might have some tidy things to say about if I am saved or not. Among born-again Bible people, ones say that if we leave out or add to any part of God's word . . . this can mean someone is not a Christian. So, we do not have some option to take it on our own selves not to believe something which is God's word.

So, if someone tells us we are leaving out part of God's word from Scripture, this can get our attention.

And I would think, that if the official Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox people consider the Apocrypha to be Canon . . . that would not excuse me to have my own opinion otherwise. I mean - - Canon, to me, means something is God's own word, therefore He expects us to consider it to be so. And by rejecting His words we reject Him.

That is how I understand Canonization of Scripture. But, of course, there are Catholics who clearly say that ones can be Christians without accepting certain Catholic things. So, they might not be strict about which Scripture we believe, like certain born-againers might be much more strict.

I personally try to see how someone is as a person, how the person relates, what the person calls attention to . . . so I have this as the meaning of whatever the person says about God and scriptures. They can tell me what to believe, who has authority, and I am looking at how they really are becoming because of what they are claiming.

So, you can see why I do not assume past "fathers" and popes have some authority about what I do and believe. Because I do not know them personally, so I can see their example as the real meaning of whatsoever they are saying.

So, then . . . answering to God Himself . . . no I have not found things of Apocrypha to be Canon. There might be certain things in there which are true, though, and I might get a message of God through something which He has me look at. But when I have read Apocryphal things, I have found my attention has gone eventually away from where non-Apocryphal Bible reading takes my attention.

And I will say that I have a problematic impression of ones both Protestant and Catholic who have told me what is authoritative, right while they have not been an example of it, in history and now. So, I am not going to accept claims of canonization on the authority of ones who are not examples of how Jesus is and loves and relates and communicates. I pray "independently" for God to have me believe what He wants, knowing I am not so perfectly guaranteed to get His communication right.

So . . . what really matters is if we get accurate understanding and the *character* change in us, which God's word means for us to get . . . by means of how His word works all He means in us >

"the word of God, which effectively works in you who believe", our Apostle Paul says, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

What He writes in us, resulting in how we become and love like Jesus > > > this is God's real Canon Scripture, maybe we could say.

"clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart." (2 Corinthians 3:3)

Two people can say the same thing about the Bible and be the exact opposite.

How am I becoming because of what I hold to, for Scripture?

gentle and humble like Jesus? Matthew 11:28-30, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 4:2

pleasantly submissive to God in His love so pure and kind and beautifully wondrous in glory of joy? James 4:7, Psalm 63:3, 1 Peter 1:8

ruled by His peace in my heart? Colossians 3:15

all-loving? Matthew 5:46, Ephesians 5:2

taking "pleasure" in troubles as I feed on His grace in any situation? 2 Corinthians 12:10

loving others more and more abundantly while they love me less and less? 2 Corinthians 12:15

being generously forgiving? Luke 23:34, Mark 11:25

having hope in prayer for any and all people to be blessed with all that is possible with God? 1 Timothy 2:1-4

Can I say the Apocrypha which I have seen calls and keeps my attention to this boat and staying in this boat? No.

Any part of God's word can be used by God to help us find out how to be and love like Jesus. So, make sure your attention goes where God guides your attention.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

You did not suggest we would be, but you *asked* "if"

Right! I asked a question and you gave your opinion on the question. That's all good. Just please don't imply that I stated something as true when I merely asked the question. You don't even know my belief on the subject except for the few clues I left in some of my replies. I did that purposely to illicit others opinions without having those opinions biased by any I might have stated. So,

Also, if Paul urges us to read God's word, and in case he means the Apocrypha included . . . this is God's command . . . not optional reading.

He didn't say it was a command of God, he simply made a recommendation to Timothy. He didn't specifically mention the Apocrypha by name either. Paul also recommended to Timothy to get off the water and have a little wine for his stomach's sake. Is that a command for us all to drink wine? You know, for our stomach's sake? If so, then are teetotalers sinning because they are not obeying God's command to drink wine? If we go by your analysis the same argument could be made for wine drinking.

 

[com7fy8]

He didn't specifically mention the Apocrypha by name either.

But he did specify "scriptures". And he says "all" are "profitable". So, I would say if he considered the Apocrypha to be *holy* scripture . . . God would expect people to also consider this so.

Paul also recommended to Timothy to get off the water

What you do with water is not as eternally significant as what you do with God's word. Plus . . . it would be understood that Timothy use the right water . . . and the right writings. And knowing which water to drink, I think, is not the same and as significant as knowing which writings are holy and for ministering >

"the washing of water by the word" (in Ephesians 5:26)

If God knows the Apocrypha is not His Canon word . . . one might have problems with it, not being ministered the living water of Jesus through it. But what if someone is a Christian and considers the Apocrypha legitimate, maybe because some leader says so? It might be interesting to see how much time that person spends in the Apocrypha, versus in the New Testament and the Law of Moses and Psalms and Proverbs and the other poeticals and historicals which are accepted by Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

What you do with water is not as eternally significant as what you do with God's word. Plus . . . it would be understood that Timothy use the right water . . . and the right writings. And knowing which water to drink, I think, is not the same and as significant as knowing which writings are holy and for ministering >

The question was about wine, not water.

 

[com7fy8]

The question was about wine, not water.

Why not both?