Should we read Apocrypha?

Never had a chance to have those odd collection of books in my hands. Possible to be an interesting read if anything from the imaginations of men who wrote them, would you think so?

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

If you can read a book knowing that it does not have spiritual authority, then the answer can be "yes". You also didn't specify which apocryphal books you had in mind, some will be worse than others.

The Apocrypha are part of my Bible and therefore I treat them like God's word. I've read them multiple times and there is nothing in there that would contradict or question the rest of the Bible. In fact there are things counted to the Apocrypha that help understanding other parts of the Bible.

If God did not want the Apocrypha to be read by His believers then I am certain that He had prevented man from printing it in each Bible

Edit: There are the books in my Apocrypha: Judith, Wisdom, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabees 1 and 2, Esther, Daniel, Manasseh.

I have read through them. I don't think there's any real risk to it. Only the book of the Maccabees has any real meat to it. The others are interesting, but lacking. If you do read it, make sure you get a copy that has some commentary, because it's good to know why the text was not included in canon.

The First Book of the Maccabees is especially valuable, because it explains what happened between the Old and New Testaments. It is also historically accurate. The Second Book of the Maccabees is just a bad abridgment of another work.

I actually find them quite fascinating.

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

I would like to ask if Catholic input is something you want for this thread, or if you're only looking for Protestant answers. Either way is fine; I just want to clarify whether or not I should give any input. Also, more clarity on whether you're talking about the 7 that Catholics include, or more of the Apocryphal works that very few Christians include. It certainly is a worthy topic to discuss, so may God bless all who post & read here!

Friedrich Rubinstein said:

I've read them multiple times and there is nothing in there that would contradict or question the rest of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Well...I wouldn't say that. The Book of Sirach has a few passing contradictions, and the Book of Judith uses an entire narrative that doesn't agree with history or the Biblical narrative (it's also regarded as a work of fiction).

For the most part, I would agree that the Apocrypha does not contradict the Bible, though.

We could also ask, why not read all of the Books in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, including the Book of Enoch, which some claim Jesus regarded as Scripture?

friend of said:

The main ones. The ones Catholicism uses

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying. My answer stands.

The answer is yes. They are at times useful for understanding intertestamental Judaism. Scholars and even some of the reformers thought these books were useful but not scripture. The edition put out by Concordia Publishing house is IMO the best.

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

Several of the oldest Protestant church bodies recommend reading them for insights into the' lives and times' of the Jews of that period between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but because they are not divinely inspired books, no doctrine can be proved by them nor should anyone attempt that.

(P.S. I just noticed that Athanasius377 gave you essentially the same advice, so how can you go wrong? )

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

If ny Apocrypha you mean the Deuterocanonical books, well, they are in any complete King James Version as the Anglicans have always read them, and were only removed as a cost-cutting measure. A harmful one, in my opinion, because books like Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom are extremely spiritually edifying and certainly inspired. Also, the longer version of Esther is much more spiritually moving.

Good Day,

I am with the historical views of the Church on these types of writings:

Jerome notes the churches view of his day:

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

I think they had it correct.

In Him,

Bill

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

The historic answer to this question within historic Protestantism is that the Deuterocanonicals (what most Protestants call "the Apocrypha") are not strictly speaking Canonical Scripture, but are nevertheless good to read--and should be read by Christians.

Lutherans are a bit "odd" in this regard, as we do not have an official position on the canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books. Luther's own private opinion, which he expressed in different ways, is not held as binding in Lutheranism (because Luther's personal opinions are only his personal opinions). Thus, where most Protestants have followed Luther in his opinion, Lutheranism does not. This usually surprises many people, including Lutherans who may not be aware of it.

The Lutheran Confessions are completely silent on this matter.

I don't know if the Deuterocanonical books are Scripture or not, I think the only way that such a position can be reached on a final closing of the Biblical Canon would require a definitive Church-wide answer. And thus only an ecumenical council could make that decision. And the last ecumenical council, as far as Lutherans are concerned, was the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 AD which addressed the Iconoclast controversy.

Without an ecumenical council, the Biblical Canon remains "open", i.e. without a definitive Church-wide consensus as to which books are definitely Canonical, and which are not.

On a strictly personal level, I think some of the Deuterocanonicals are absolutely great, and I think their absence from many modern Bibles is tragic, books such as Sirach and 1 Maccabees are very good, and in fact 1 Maccabees provides us with some much needed history. But I do not necessarily feel equally as enthusiastic about all the books of the Deuterocanonicals. But my personal opinion doesn't really mean anything, it only describes my own personal and subjective feelings based on my own reading and experiences with the texts in question.

But yes, I do believe that even if the Deuterocanonicals are not Scripture in the proper sense, they are still invaluable and good to read, and Christians should avail themselves to their reading and study. And, of course, if the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture, then of course they should be read by Christians--for Scripture is for our benefit and edification in Christ as the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

The difficulty, and I've noticed this in some of the responses of this thread, is what is meant by the term "apocrypha".

The word "apocrypha" has been used as a catch-all term for works that are not regarded as canonical, and can include any number of works, even including objectively heretical works.

But what is being discussed here is those books that are more accurately described as the Deuterocanonical books, while this is a more Western term (as far as I know the East does not really make any distinction here between Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical). These are those books of the Bible which are found in the Septuagint, but which ultimately did not receive full acceptance in the Jewish Tanakh. Books which have at many times been disputed within the Church. Though, it is worth noting, that canonical disputes concerning certain Old Testament books are not exclusive to the Deuterocanonicals, there are Protocanonical works which were also disputed.

In a Protestant context, it is these Deuterocanonical books which Luther questioned, though he does not do so in a vacuum, but rather Luther simply engages with the historic dispute and debates which had been going on since Christian antiquity.

Luther's German language translation of the Bible involved Luther making a conscious choice to remove the Deuterocanonicals from their normal place in the traditional Latin Old Testament, and instead places them in their own section between the Old and New Testaments, and styles them "The Apocrypha". His opinion being that they are not divinely inspired Scripture, but are nevertheless very good and should be read.

It is this which set the standard for future Protestant Bibles, and also for various Protestant confessions coming out of the Reformation and later in affirming only the 39 books of Luther's Old Testament Canon as Old Testament Scripture.

So it's important to make this distinction, the question is about the capital-A "Apocrypha", aka the Deuterocanonical books. Not lowercase-a "apocrypha" describing the varied and broad Jewish, Christian, and heretical works. So we aren't talking about 1 Enoch, or Jubilees, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, or the Gospel of Thomas. But very specifically the Deuterocanonical books.

This is actually why I think it is better to be clear by calling them the Deuterocanonicals, this leaves no ambiguity, where as Apocrypha/apocrypha does leave ambiguity.

-CryptoLutheran

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

since they ARE divinely inspired, I would say they are worth reading. Remember, the same Church that said Matthew is inspired said the Apocrypha (Deuteracannical) is inspired.

friend of said:

Should we read the Apocryphal books as protestants or should we leave them alone?

Click to expand...

Protestants have a long history of ignoring those texts. So why change now, right?