Are there Inspired Apocryphal books?

[TheLostCoin]

So here's a question I have - are there inspired Apocryphal books?

We all know that at various Councils the Church determined firmly the Biblical Canon, and what exactly is the Word of God - especially when there were a lot of heretical books floating around claiming to tell the Truth, but rather distorted it (for example, the Gospels of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas, which say ridiculous things).

Nonetheless, it does seem to be the case that certain Apocryphal Books have credence in contributing to Orthodox Tradition - one of these, for instance, is the Protoevangelium of James, which gave us information about the Virgin Mary's life (about Saints Joachim and Anna, and her being consecrated as a Temple Virgin), and even the Tradition that the Virgin Mary remained a physical Virgin miraculously after the Birth of Christ - as well as the fact that other Apocryphal Books go into more detail about what happened with each of the Apostles (for instance, the Apocryphal text "The Martyrdom of Peter" explains how Saint Peter was crucified upside down).

More than this is that it's clearly the case that, before there was an established Canon of Scripture, many Church Fathers did see some Apocryphal Books as belonging to God's Word - for instance, Saint Clement of Alexandria believed in his writings that the Apocalypse of Peter - a book in which Saint Peter is revealed the various torments in Hell - was canonical, even though the Church later decided it's not.

Finally, it seems that the debates about what's in or out of the Canon of Scripture were a lot more based on whether or not the Scriptures reveal what the Church believes in rather than what's strictly known to be accepted - I remember explicitly reading that there were fierce debates about whether the Revelation of Saint John should be included in the Canon of Scripture, and there were debates about whether the Didache should be included or not, with the conclusion reached that having the Didache in the Bible would be redundant for teaching Church Discipline, because that's what the Church was for.

So, with this being said, are there Inspired Apocryphal Books? And if an Apocryphal Book is known to contribute to Christian Tradition or be accepted by a Church Father, is it worth reading?

Thanks.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes and yes. just because something isn't on the same level as Scripture or an Ecumenical Council, it's still inspired if it conforms to the Church.

 

[YanKee Gal]

Yes there are inspired books beside apocrypha. there is book of enoch, jubilees and the book of jasher. all are of jewish antiquities.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

So here's a question I have - are there inspired Apocryphal books?

We all know that at various Councils the Church determined firmly the Biblical Canon, and what exactly is the Word of God - especially when there were a lot of heretical books floating around claiming to tell the Truth, but rather distorted it (for example, the Gospels of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas, which say ridiculous things).

Nonetheless, it does seem to be the case that certain Apocryphal Books have credence in contributing to Orthodox Tradition - one of these, for instance, is the Protoevangelium of James, which gave us information about the Virgin Mary's life (about Saints Joachim and Anna, and her being consecrated as a Temple Virgin), and even the Tradition that the Virgin Mary remained a physical Virgin miraculously after the Birth of Christ - as well as the fact that other Apocryphal Books go into more detail about what happened with each of the Apostles (for instance, the Apocryphal text "The Martyrdom of Peter" explains how Saint Peter was crucified upside down).

More than this is that it's clearly the case that, before there was an established Canon of Scripture, many Church Fathers did see some Apocryphal Books as belonging to God's Word - for instance, Saint Clement of Alexandria believed in his writings that the Apocalypse of Peter - a book in which Saint Peter is revealed the various torments in Hell - was canonical, even though the Church later decided it's not.

Finally, it seems that the debates about what's in or out of the Canon of Scripture were a lot more based on whether or not the Scriptures reveal what the Church believes in rather than what's strictly known to be accepted - I remember explicitly reading that there were fierce debates about whether the Revelation of Saint John should be included in the Canon of Scripture, and there were debates about whether the Didache should be included or not, with the conclusion reached that having the Didache in the Bible would be redundant for teaching Church Discipline, because that's what the Church was for.

So, with this being said, are there Inspired Apocryphal Books? And if an Apocryphal Book is known to contribute to Christian Tradition or be accepted by a Church Father, is it worth reading?

Thanks.

Could there be? Yes. But, the question would be why did the "early church fathers" reject them as Scripture?

Could they be valuable, though not on the level of Scripture? I think those who didn't think they were on the level of Scripture did believe they were valuable for devotional material.

The challenge is "why add more?"

Jesus said "My Words are spirit and they are life." So, why live in Maccabbees, which doesn't promise that? The Gospels are the account of Jesus to solidify your faith in Him being the Savior He claimed to be. The prophesies that God gives regarding Him are in the Old Testament within the books that Jesus quoted their being prophets from. Then there are the Epistles which address things that were happening in the churches of the time and overall summaries. You also have Acts and Revelation so you can see what the early years of the church were like and you can see what God said through Jesus Christ through John is going to happen in the end of this age and how to be an overcomer.

Not to pick on Maccabbees, again, but how does that add any more value? It seems to dilute the amount of time you have to focus on what matters most. So, why go back and add it when the still unified church that produced the Bible didn't seem to think those books should be in it--as Scripture?

 

[TheLostCoin]

Could there be? Yes. But, the question would be why did the "early church fathers" reject them as Scripture?

Could they be valuable, though not on the level of Scripture? I think those who didn't think they were on the level of Scripture did believe they were valuable for devotional material.

The challenge is "why add more?"

Simple - to help fully understand what the Scriptures say in their fullness, in much the same vein one would use Gospel Commentaries or Scholarly Analysis to understand the context and meaning of the Bible verses.

By having books around the same time period which were deemed legitimate by the Church - either explicitly or implicitly - it may help explain the Bible and the Lives of the Apostles more fully than a simple base reading of the text can accomplish, with our own 21st century prejudices and biases.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Simple - to help fully understand what the Scriptures say in their fullness, in much the same vein one would use Gospel Commentaries or Scholarly Analysis to understand the context and meaning of the Bible verses.

By having books around the same time period which were deemed legitimate by the Church - either explicitly or implicitly - it may help explain the Bible and the Lives of the Apostles more fully than a simple base reading of the text can accomplish, with our own 21st century prejudices and biases.

Or maybe the Scriptures did not include them for a reason. I don't subscribe to commentaries or scholarly analysis either. Most of that is not inspired. There were a whole lot of people who really understood the context that missed Jesus. There are many seminary professors and scholars who are just as knowledgeable about the One they don't know personally.

But, the issue is if those closest didn't think that those books for of more use than devotionals, why make them into something more now?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Or maybe the Scriptures did not include them for a reason. I don't subscribe to commentaries or scholarly analysis either. Most of that is not inspired. There were a whole lot of people who really understood the context that missed Jesus. There are many seminary professors and scholars who are just as knowledgeable about the One they don't know personally.

But, the issue is if those closest didn't think that those books for of more use than devotionals, why make them into something more now?

except the works that he is talking about are not scholarly analysis, but rather, other things written by men who knew the risen Christ.

 

[buzuxi02]

Apocryphal books may contain elements of truth but they are rejected.
Books such as PJ didn't reveal something new it just stated things already widely believed (For example compare PJ infancy narrative to that of Justin Martyr's). From Serapion of Antioch in 190 AD to Basil the Great in 379ad none ever said that traditions such as the perpetual Virginity of Mary were revealed in apocryphal texts. They have said it's the commonly held pious beliefs of the people and bishops.
Apocryphal texts can be useful for historical reasons to gauge the antiquity of a doctrine and such and possibly reconstruct events in church history etc.

 

[buzuxi02]

remember explicitly reading that there were fierce debates about whether the Revelation of Saint John should be included in the Canon of Scripture, and there were debates about whether the Didache should be included or not, with the conclusion reached that having the Didache in the Bible would be redundant for teaching Church Discipline, because that's what the Church was for.

Didache and such are not apocryphal. They are included in St. Athanasius canonical epistle and even in the canons of the Holy Apostles. Apocryphal books are gospels, Acts, and apocalyptic literature outside the canonized scriptures and/or books deemed "worthy to be read".

 

[Erik Nelson]

1 Clement ?

 

[JasonV]

Not to pick on Maccabbees, again, but how does that add any more value? It seems to dilute the amount of time you have to focus on what matters most.

Better time spent reading the Deuterocanonicals than mindless hours on TV, social media, et cetera.

 

[Anthony70]

One non-canon book I personally find really strange how it did not make it in the canon is the Shepherd of Hermas. Even when almost every Church Father supported it, it still didn’t make it in.

 

[buzuxi02]

One non-canon book I personally find really strange how it did not make it in the canon is the Shepherd of Hermas. Even when almost every Church Father supported it, it still didn’t make it in.

Who said it didnt? Its listed in St. Athanasios 39th canonical epistle, one of the epistles ratified by the Church which lists what scriptural books to be read. It's also found in the Codex Sinaiticus.

 

[Anthony70]

Who said it didnt? Its listed in St. Athanasios canonical epistle, one of the epistles ratified by the Church which lists the scriptural books. It's also found in the Codex Sinaiticus.

I don’t believe any Church considers it part of Scripture. Unless I don’t have a full understanding of what scripture means in the Eastern Churches?

 

[buzuxi02]

I don’t believe any Church considers it part of Scripture. Unless I don’t have a full understanding of what scripture means in the Eastern Churches?

There are two tiers of scripture. Those books read officially in Liturgy (the canonical books) and books which are not read in liturgy but sanctioned by the church to be worthy such as Revelation.

Our modern bibles have their roots in western Europe by those in charge of the printing press. They decided to stop at Revelation. Here is canon 85 of the Holy Apostles:

Canon LXXXV.
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read: of Judith, one;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clement, and the Constitutions of me Clement, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.

Here is St. Athanasios listing books from his 39th epistle:
. . 'But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings..'.

 

[Anthony70]

There are two tiers of scripture. Those books read officially in Liturgy (the canonical books) and books which are not read in liturgy but sanctioned by the church to be worthy such as Revelation.

Our modern bibles have their roots in western Europe by those in charge of the printing press. They decided to stop at Revelation. Here is canon 85 of the Holy Apostles:

Canon LXXXV.
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read: of Judith, one;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clement, and the Constitutions of me Clement, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.

Here is St. Athanasios listing books from his 39th epistle:
. . 'But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings..'.

Do you think that possibly if the Eastern Churches would have printed Bibles first that the Bible would have these books in it? Also are these books considered inspired?

 

[buzuxi02]

Do you think that possibly if the Eastern Churches would have printed Bibles first that the Bible would have these books in it? Also are these books considered inspired?

The earliest manuscripts of the bible we have Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandricus had many of them. The vaticanus manuscripts actually falls apart at Jude but those that have analyzed the the binding make clear it contained not only Revelation but many of the other books. I believe the Alexandrian manuscript contained the Epistle of Barnabas as well.
In the early church many were illiterate so they only listened to the scripture in Church. So churches had the NT but probably minus these other books. Note that Revelation is never read in the Byzantine Orthodox tradition and many of the ancient Orthodox lists omit it for this reason (for example St. Cyril of Jerusalem excludes it). So a book which is worthy of being read such as deuterocanonicals would be read by a small group of educated not the masses. Most likely they would have required to commission a scribe.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

except the works that he is talking about are not scholarly analysis, but rather, other things written by men who knew the risen Christ.

I know the risen Christ, too. So, are you suggesting that you should read every word I write, too?

At some point what was Scripture and what was good for devotional reading only was decided. Maybe they weren't right; but the decision was made when the church was more unified and of one accord than it is today. It still wasn't as unified as the room where the 120 were gathered or in the subsequent places where Scripture says they were of one accord; but it was much closer than today. If they decided that the other books weren't Scripture, I don't see the valid justification for adding them today.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Better time spent reading the Deuterocanonicals than mindless hours on TV, social media, et cetera.

I am in 100% agreement that it is better to bury myself in something of God than something not of God. But, since nobody has a full handle on the Scriptures and Jesus said My Words are Spirit and They are Life, it certainly seems like it would be better to be fully immersed in the Scriptures and what the Scriptures say we should be doing, than burying ourselves in any "devotional work".

Can you imagine what it would be like if the church was going out and laying hands on the sick and the miracles--like those done of Stephen and Philip only--were done today? That same God is still present. Why is that done so little today? Maybe because people spend too much time approaching the Word--as if He is simply a published Book of knowledge--without letting the Word do what only the Word and Holy Spirit can do in them and through them. God's desire isn't head knowledge without submission and change.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

So are the deuteros from the OT and various post-NT books like the Shepherd not used for the formation of doctrine but mainly for private edification or to confirm doctrine contained in the canon itself?