Apocrypha

[Oblio]

But I am interesting in hearing how the Prayer of Manasseh is Scripture in your opinion. His prayer obviously isn't inspired, since he does say that Abraham was sinless, and we know only Jesus Christ Himself was sinless.

I doubt that it is PV's personal opinion regarding the canonicity of PoM but rather a assertion of what an ecclesiastical body believes. Then you go on to give your opinion that it is not inspired :insertlostsmileyhere:

 

[christian-only]

Whether it is a personal opinion or an opinion of an ecclesiastical body, there must be some explanation of in what way it is considered inspired, and how it is to be used.

 

[Oblio]

The point is, that the Body that affirmed it canonical is the Body of Christ, the Church. The way it was considered inspired is through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Those books are considered canonical because they affim what that Body, led by the Holy Spirit has always believed.

 

[Netzari5730]

Which book, if any, of the Apocrypha, could be considered as scripture? Not to be confused with the Apocrypha, are there any of the psuedo-Apocrypha which may also be given a value? (see the sacred-texts site) After a rough study, most of the Apocrypha seem Biblically based, but most of the psuedo-Apocrypha seem obviously fake. Please assist!

(Also, is it permissible to speak in Latin here, or must I translate to English?)

I am uncertain if you mean the "Pseudepigrapha" when you say "Pseudo-Apocrypha", but since I am not aware of a Pseudo-Apocrypha, I will go with the Pseudepigrapha Idea.

1 Enoch is quoted in Jude, and was read commonly by scholars of the time. This book is a part of the Pseudepigrapha. It was also read by the Essenes of the Dead Sea. And was also a popular book among certain Pharisees who were involved in the early traditions of Kabbalah known as Ma'aseh Mer'kavah (Works of the Chariot). However, some parts of the Book we have today have been added, particularly Section 2, The Parables: Chapters 37-71. This section was added after 70 c.e.

Copies of Ben Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom of Solomon, to name a few, have also been found at Qumran. The Essenes had copies of all sorts of Apochryphic/Deuterocanonic/Pseudepigraphic works. But one book that was missing, canon and non-canon, was Esther... I wonder why?

Comparisons have been made, and it has been found that Paul had quoted from Ben Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, though I do not have any references on hand.

In Yeshua...
Netzari5730

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Interesting, all interesting. Someone mentioned contradiction or something in Daniel, Ester, and Jonah? Can somone please enlighten me?

 

[Philip]

Here are some for Daniel.

Daniel 1:1-2
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

2 Kings 24:6, 8-10
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son became king in his place...Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. He did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up to Jerusalem, and the city came under siege.​

So, who was king whe Nebuchadnezzar laid siege? You might also want to look up in which years Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar each became king. It becomes difficult to explain how Nebuchadnezzar invaded during the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. Also, the name 'Shinar' is anachronistic.

BTW, the correct spelling is NebuchadRezzar (Jeremiah and Ezekiel get it right). There is a good reason for the mispelling, but it requires you to first accept that the book of Daniel is not historic.

Daniel 5:1
Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand.​

The kingdom of Babylon collapsed while Belshazzar was prince. There are ways to reconcile this, but at its face, it is wrong.

Daniel 5:30-31
That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.​

History records that the Chaldean Empire fell to Cyrus the Persian. Darius doesn't show up until about 10-15 years latter.

Daniel 9:1
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans--​

Acording to Ezra, Ahasuerus is Xerxes I. But this creates a problem: history records that Xerxes is Darius's son, not his father.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Interesting. I can see a way to reconcile some of these, but it would require an errant view on them. Maybe I am mistaken? Or maybe these books aren't part of the inerrant scripture?

 

[Philip]

I had trouble with this book until someone offered another way to read it. It can be read as a condemnation of Antiochus Epiphanes and a message of hope for the Jews under his rule. The book retains all of its theological and prophetic value*, but the inconsistencies become explainable. For example, the name Antiochus Epiphanes has the same numerical value as Nebuchadnezzar, but not as the correct Nebuchadrezzar. The end result is that we get a prophetic book written in code for a people facing persecution, not entirely unlike the Revelation.


*The Dispensational intrepretation of Daniel becomes strained under this reading, but other interpretations of the prophesies exist.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Ok, thank you. Because Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken, I wasn't sure if I was looking at it wrong or whatnot. Thank you!

 

[ischus]

Hey Philip

Sorry to jump in so late, but if I may, I would like to offer some suggestions about the textual issues in Daniel that you have brought up.

Daniel 5:1
Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand.​

The kingdom of Babylon collapsed while Belshazzar was prince. There are ways to reconcile this, but at its face, it is wrong.

Nabonitus was the last legitimate King of Babylon, yet Daniel states that Belshazzar was the last King. This is easily reconciled by the Babylonian Chronicles, which state that Nabonitus spent the last 10 years of his life alone in an oasis in Arabia. The text then says that Belshazzar, the son of Nabonitus, was given his father's throne, and saw to all of his fathers work in his place, in essence making him King.

Daniel 5:30-31
That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.​

History records that the Chaldean Empire fell to Cyrus the Persian. Darius doesn't show up until about 10-15 years latter.

We know that Darius I did not come to the throne until ca. 522 BC. We also know that Cyrus, King of Persia, defeated the Medes in 550. But, Cyrus had Medean relations, so he embraced the Medes and joined their forces together, becoming the King of both peoples. Cyrus, in effect, had two throne names: his Persian one (Cyrus), as well as his Medean one (Darius).

So, the Darius that you see here is Cyrus, King of Persia. This is demonstrated in Dan.6:28, where the two names are equated with one another. (The word "and" is not a good translation here, and is similar to the Greek word, "kai," which can be translated as "also," "or," "even," etc. See Gal.6 for several examples of this.)

Daniel 9:1
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans--​

Acording to Ezra, Ahasuerus is Xerxes I. But this creates a problem: history records that Xerxes is Darius's son, not his father.

Since I do not take Darius the Mede to be Gubaru, I can only attribute this to a scribal error (to the best of my knowledge). If I were to take Darius the Mede in 5:31 and 6:28 to be Gubaru, I could present the case for Ahasuerus to be the father of Gubaru. However, I will not since I am not of this opinion.

I had trouble with this book until someone offered another way to read it. It can be read as a condemnation of Antiochus Epiphanes and a message of hope for the Jews under his rule. The book retains all of its theological and prophetic value*, but the inconsistencies become explainable. For example, the name Antiochus Epiphanes has the same numerical value as Nebuchadnezzar, but not as the correct Nebuchadrezzar. The end result is that we get a prophetic book written in code for a people facing persecution, not entirely unlike the Revelation.

I would be interested in hearing more about this, if you have time...

​

Daniel 1:1-2
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

2 Kings 24:6, 8-10
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son became king in his place...Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. He did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up to Jerusalem, and the city came under siege.​

So, who was king whe Nebuchadnezzar laid siege? You might also want to look up in which years Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar each became king. It becomes difficult to explain how Nebuchadnezzar invaded during the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. Also, the name 'Shinar' is anachronistic.

I apologize, but I do not see any obvious problem here. Could you please explain further what you are questioning? (sorry)
​

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thanks for the info. its always interesting to see how some interpretation always works!

 

[christian-only]

The supposed "contradiction" between Daniel 1:1-2 and 2 Kings 24:6, 8-10, proposed by Philip in post #46 of this thread is easily solved:

(Dan 1:1-2 NKJV) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. {2} And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the articles of the house of God, which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the articles into the treasure house of his god.

(2 Ki 24:6-10 NKJV) So Jehoiakim rested with his fathers. Then Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place. {7} And the king of Egypt did not come out of his land anymore, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates. {8} Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother's name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. {9} And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. {10} At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

(2 Ki 24:1 NKJV) In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him.

The "third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" mentioned in Daniel 1:1 is the third year of his vassal-ship to Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died this same year and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place for 3 months before Nebuchadnezzar layed the city under seige for Jehoiakim's rebellion.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thank you!