Apocrypha

[Allen1901]

I expounded on it for the benefit of those that don't know about conflicts over the historical canon, I understood the reason you put quotation marks around 'lost'. If it came across as singling you out, that wasn't my intention.

When it comes to the specials on them on the History Channel, the reasons for exclusion are not covered very well, if covered at all. And like most of said Channel's religious or otherwise 'unexplained history' or 'supernatural investigation' offerings, it's sensationalized and conspiratorialized. It wouldn't be odd to see people buy into it like some did with the Da Vinci Code.

Thank you for your valuable input. It is much appreciated!

God bless!

 

[SirachOne]

I always forget others may not read the Septuagint or indeed regard some of its contents as not being canonical. I read them on a regular basis as even if we, as Christians, disagree on certain books being canonical there is certainly wisdom to be taken from some of them and they can provide some food for thought.

 

[MacFall]

I always forget others may not read the Septuagint or indeed regard some of its contents as not being canonical. I read them on a regular basis as even if we, as Christians, disagree on certain books being canonical there is certainly wisdom to be taken from some of them and they can provide some food for thought.

I read them the same way I'd read the works of Spurgeon, Murray, or Lewis. Although I think there's a lot more symbolism in apocryphal works.

 

[Tink]

I started reading some, and then came to feel as though I shouldn't.

I may read them at some point, if I'm not convicted/conflicted about it.

 

[MacFall]

I started reading some, and then came to feel as though I shouldn't.

I may read them at some point, if I'm not convicted/conflicted about it.

I can't think of any particular reason why you should have a problem with reading it. It's not like it was all left out of the Bible because it was heretical (it includes works by Paul, for instance) - most of it was considered "spurious", or redundant; some of it was rejected not on the basis of content, but because clear authorship and time of origin couldn't be established, and they weren't going to add stuff that was written recently (at their time). Very little of it is actually heretical, and the stuff that is is really obvious.

 

[callmeMurph]

I have a Bible with the Apocrypha, haven't been interested in reading them yet though. I will some day.

 

[Tink]

I can't think of any particular reason why you should have a problem with reading it. It's not like it was all left out of the Bible because it was heretical (it includes works by Paul, for instance) - most of it was considered "spurious", or redundant; some of it was rejected not on the basis of content, but because clear authorship and time of origin couldn't be established, and they weren't going to add stuff that was written recently (at their time). Very little of it is actually heretical, and the stuff that is is really obvious.

When it comes to the Holy Spirit convicting me, I just go with it. I can't think of a "particular reason" either. After all, I've read a ton of other religious texts, including spellbooks and the satanic bible. However, at this time I'm not supposed to read the apocrypha.

I have prayed about it. If God doesn't mind me reading it, I'm sure I'll pick it up again sometime.

Also, I have a [big] problem with no clear authorship. That's another story, though.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

When it comes to the Holy Spirit convicting me, I just go with it. I can't think of a "particular reason" either. After all, I've read a ton of other religious texts, including spellbooks and the satanic bible. However, at this time I'm not supposed to read the apocrypha.

I have prayed about it. If God doesn't mind me reading it, I'm sure I'll pick it up again sometime.

Also, I have a [big] problem with no clear authorship. That's another story, though.

Most of the bible doesn't have clear authorship.

 

[scraparcs]

If you're led not to read these books, don't. If you're led to read them, do. If you're not led one way or the other, treat it like any other book.

 

[Qyöt27]

I can't think of any particular reason why you should have a problem with reading it. It's not like it was all left out of the Bible because it was heretical (it includes works by Paul, for instance) - most of it was considered "spurious", or redundant; some of it was rejected not on the basis of content, but because clear authorship and time of origin couldn't be established, and they weren't going to add stuff that was written recently (at their time). Very little of it is actually heretical, and the stuff that is is really obvious.

There's two distinct groups of texts known as the Apocrypha, and it depends on who exactly you're talking to as to what group they mean. I say this because I'm not sure which group ordinary.girl is referring to.

Protestants that use the term usually mean the Deuterocanon, the books that Luther removed because he didn't see them as inspired, yet nonetheless are still included in some Protestant bibles in an appendix at the end or sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments. He also was going to cut out those books regarded canonical which fell into the Antilegomena, which would mean the Protestant New Testament canon would not contain James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revelation. He decided against doing that, obviously.

Catholics use the term Apocrypha to refer to a collection of various works in several categories, but none are considered to be canon. Protestants typically refer to these as the more technical 'Pseudepigraphicae' (i.e. 'texts written under pseudonyms'). Some in this group are orthodox, but not universally accepted into canon (like the Didache) or because of contradicting theologies (any of the writings of groups deemed heretical). It's not a clear-cut distinction, either - it's more of a continuum. For instance, I have severe reservations on stuff derived from Enoch, which IMO serves more to fuel angelological/demonological speculation than it does actually expound on Scripture or contribute to fruitful growth (despite Enoch being quoted in Jude).

 

[Rhamiel]

I have read Tobit, Wisdome of Solomon, and Baruch
Love Tobit and Wisdome, Baruch was ok but it was more of the same as Jeremiah, makes sense since Baruch was Jermiah's scribe, also Baruch referances cats so that would be the only part of the bible that mentions cats
i have read bits of Maccabees but could not really finish it

 

[Rhamiel]

i might have read Judith
and i did read Ecclesiasticus

 

[MacFall]

Protestants that use the term usually mean the Deuterocanon, the books that Luther removed because he didn't see them as inspired, yet nonetheless are still included in some Protestant bibles in an appendix at the end or sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments.

But few Protestants know about that. And by what standard did he consider them not to be "inspired"? Is not anything written under the guidance of God's Spirit inspired?

It's not a clear-cut distinction, either - it's more of a continuum. For instance, I have severe reservations on stuff derived from Enoch, which IMO serves more to fuel angelological/demonological speculation than it does actually expound on Scripture or contribute to fruitful growth (despite Enoch being quoted in Jude).

But if it was quoted as scripture in Jude, which is considered to be scripture, then doesn't that call into question the book of Jude? But for those who consider scripture to be inerrant, that is unthinkable.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of people consider the Bible itself to be sacrosanct. I don't see it that way. I have faith in God to reveal Truth to us; I do not have faith in man to accurately transcribe it. I know there's a word for this, but I can't remember it: the idea that we should look at the gospels (the words and works of Christ Himself, testified to by his disciples who carried their testimony unto death) as a filter through which the rest of the New Testament should be viewed.

But that requires a distinction to be made between the Word of God and, for example, the words of Paul, which is something that most Christians are unwilling to do.

 

[toastface_grillah]

Anyone read the apocryphal books of the Bible? Anyone interested in reading them? I just realized I've only read Tobit and a few portions of Wisdom and would like to read the apocryphal books of the Bible sometime soon.

Sure, why not? I've never read (nor possessed a bible that contained) them, but they could be interesting.

i recently acquired a bible with the apocrypha included and have been meaning to read it, but i've been busy reading the Bible in ways i never have before.

Tell, tell!

 

[Qyöt27]

But few Protestants know about that. And by what standard did he consider them not to be "inspired"? Is not anything written under the guidance of God's Spirit inspired?

Precisely. What I meant was that ideas about what the canon of Scripture is is not Scripturally-evident, it's something constructed out of tradition (look at how fast someone now would be rebuked and held to be in a cult if they produce a canon with different books or having subtracted and added ones to theirs). Whether you point at one of the ecumenical councils that decided this in the Early Church period, or you go with what Luther considered to be canon, you are still making a decision on inspiration yourself on which to believe.

IIRC, Luther's reasoning had something to do with what Judaism accepted as authoritative, but that gets into contentious waters because the Catholic position is that Judaism rejected those books post-Christ (actually around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem and Revelation being written), in order to mask Christian fulfillment of Messianic prophecies in those books. I'm not really sure.

But if it was quoted as scripture in Jude, which is considered to be scripture, then doesn't that call into question the book of Jude? But for those who consider scripture to be inerrant, that is unthinkable.

Well, they'd already reject the idea that Jude was in question, despite it being in the Antilegomena, which are themselves of contested origin. Adherence to pre-conceived notions rejects any sort of historical scholarship in those sorts of groups.

I'd just look at it as making a cultural backreference, just as if we were to draw an analogy from Lord of the Rings or something. The Old Testament has instances of it too, referring to legends or folk stories that the original audiences would have been privy to, but that we aren't because they didn't survive in either oral or written traditions. Like that blurb in Genesis about the Nephilim and the "men of great renown".

Even with those who subscribe to Inerrancy, they still have to have some measure of why they consider Luther's canon to be inerrant, and the deuterocanon or other books to not be. Then you start treading into a little historical revisionism, because I bet they'd say something to the effect that the modern Protestant canon was always the Scriptural standard, and there were no conflicts over what literature in the Early Church was inspired. But there's just too much apologetical evidence from that period against or for different books for that to be true.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of people consider the Bible itself to be sacrosanct. I don't see it that way. I have faith in God to reveal Truth to us; I do not have faith in man to accurately transcribe it. I know there's a word for this, but I can't remember it: the idea that we should look at the gospels (the words and works of Christ Himself, testified to by his disciples who carried their testimony unto death) as a filter through which the rest of the New Testament should be viewed.

But that requires a distinction to be made between the Word of God and, for example, the words of Paul, which is something that most Christians are unwilling to do.

I'm not quite sure of the exact position you describe with Gospels primary and Pauline documents secondary, but the idea that things outside Scripture are the lens through which to interpret Scripture typically means the person adheres to Prima scriptura. You won't find Prima scriptura-ists among Evangelicals and Fundies, though, and for that matter, won't necessarily find them inside Mainline Protestantism (aside from Anglicans and Methodists, if the three-legged stool** and Wesleyan Quadrilateral are considered as endorsements of the Prima scriptura position; personally, I do consider them as such endorsements, but there's likely disagreement on that from the low-church portions of both schools, and mixed perception in the broad-church areas).

**Scripture, Tradition, Reason for Anglicans; Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience for the Quad

 

[acropolis]

But that requires a distinction to be made between the Word of God and, for example, the words of Paul, which is something that most Christians are unwilling to do.

It is odd to me that so many Christians, who claim to worship Jesus, don't prioritize the words of Jesus. It seems to me that if a person actually believes that Jesus was, and is, the one true Son of God, then there would be no question that his words would take precedence over those of ordinary men such as Paul. Instead I find that most Christians, for example, prefer 2 Thessalonians 3:10 to Matthew 25:31-46. Things like this, among other abuses of scripture, make it impossible for me to take people seriously when they say they worship Jesus. Though to be fair, it would be difficult to make any sense of the menagerie of biblical figures and their various divine worth. Should you place an Old Testament prophet above a disciple? What about unsourced scripture? Etc.

 

[Allen1901]

Forgotten Books offers a free PDF if you wish to read it for yourself.

www.forgottenbooks.org/ebooks/eau/9781605060958.pdf

 

[Rhamiel]

IIRC, Luther's reasoning had something to do with what Judaism accepted as authoritative, but that gets into contentious waters because the Catholic position is that Judaism rejected those books post-Christ (actually around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem and Revelation being written), in order to mask Christian fulfillment of Messianic prophecies in those books. I'm not really sure.

I think it is a little more simple
the books that the Catholics accept and the Jews do not, deuterocanon, were written in greek
after Christianity came and had many greek converts the Christian faith was looked at as being "too greek" so the jews wanted to get rid of books they thought were corrupted
but what the jews decide to do after the creation of the Christian Church does not really matter to me
they do not accept the Gospels either

 

[Rhamiel]

never read any of the gnostic books, my mom read the Gospel of Thomas, I will have to ask her what she thought of it

 

[MacFall]

I think that's the one that had Jesus in love with Mary Magdalene.