bibles with apocrypha

[GraceSeeker]

You are wrong about this and should do a little reading.

Give us a list of them. Genuine scholars, with a Ph.D. and a teaching post in an accredited university or seminary.

 

[Maid Marie]

However, Judaism had changed in the last thousand years. The nascent Christian community that had adopted the LXX as its own did not stay the small non-threatening offshoot it had once been. It grew, and it began to be a threat to Judaism. You can see that as early as the conflict recorded in Acts 15. But it would become more so when these Christians began to use the very scriptures the Jews themselves used to declare that this man Jesus that the Christians worshiped was in fact not just the Jewish Messiah (there had been hundreds before of mostly little significance) but actually God incarnate. And some of the places that they got these ideas from where in particular Judith and Tobit. So, the rabbis decided that they needed a more defined canon as well, and the process by which that canon was determined coincidentally would exclude those books that Christians had found so helpful to their cause.
.

Very interesting. Think I'll read Judith and Tobit now.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You are wrong about this and should do a little reading.

Alright, give the name of a genuine scholar with a university degree who participates in the wider international academic discussion on ancient Jewish texts who believes that 1 Enoch is anything but intertestamental pseudepigrapha.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Alright, give the name of a genuine scholar with a university degree who participates in the wider international academic discussion on ancient Jewish texts who believes that 1 Enoch is anything but intertestamental pseudepigrapha.

No. I cannot show that. But if you go back and re-read the thread I responded to that was not the argument being put forward. The poster claimed that 1 Enoch was deemed Scripture by many. Scholars do believe that is the case.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Before the Gospels; it was part of the collection of books for both Hebrews and early Christians who fled Rome. And, as I said, it was still part of the "canon" until the 4th century - considered inspired.

As far as date... no one can be sure, not even almighty "science," and it's perfect dating methods.

That simply isn't true, and no genuine scholar of 1 Enoch would agree with you.

You are wrong about this and should do a little reading.

Alright, give the name of a genuine scholar with a university degree who participates in the wider international academic discussion on ancient Jewish texts who believes that 1 Enoch is anything but intertestamental pseudepigrapha.

No. I cannot show that. But if you go back and re-read the thread I responded to that was not the argument being put forward. The poster claimed that 1 Enoch was deemed Scripture by many. Scholars do believe that is the case.

Ok. I've gone back. Scholars do believe what is the case? That 1 Enoch was deemed Scripture by many?

Yea, by people like Lollerskates.

But what scholars have said that 1 Enoch was deemed scripture by either the Church or the Jewish community? (BTW, Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel don't count as scholars.) I recognize that it is quoted in Jude and also in the Epistle of Barnabas, and I recognize that some church fathers thought that Enoch was the genuine work of the patriarch Enoch. But, to me at least, that isn't the same as saying that it was accepted as scripture. Lots of things were quoted that weren't considered scripture.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Ok. I've gone back. Scholars do believe what is the case? That 1 Enoch was deemed Scripture by many?

Yea, by people like Lollerskates.

But what scholars have said that 1 Enoch was deemed scripture by either the Church or the Jewish community? (BTW, Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel don't count as scholars.) I recognize that it is quoted in Jude and also in the Epistle of Barnabas, and I recognize that some church fathers thought that Enoch was the genuine work of the patriarch Enoch. But, to me at least, that isn't the same as saying that it was accepted as scripture. Lots of things were quoted that weren't considered scripture.

For you its not the same as saying its Scripture, however, there are scholars who make the critical historical judgment that it was considered such by certain Jews and Christians in the milieu of the early stages of the Church.

Isn't the presence of an ancient branch of Orthodoxy that DOES consider it Scripture a testament to an earlier time?

George Nickelsburg does the best job I've seen marshalling the evidence for the ancient acceptance of the book, here:

[c] [/c]

Here is a source which documents the historical place of the Book of Enoch in the Armenian Bible:

[c] [/c]

Also, Michael E. Stone wrote a series or articles for JSTOR about the Armenian Canon Lists. Enoch was considered one of the books of the Bible as late as the 13th C.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Isn't the presence of an ancient branch of Orthodoxy that DOES consider it Scripture a testament to an earlier time?

Good point.

I think one of the things that is happening is a difference of opinion based on when a book might have been in use, and when it became considered as scripture.

For instance: "George Nickelsburg does the best job I've seen marshalling the evidence for the ancient acceptance of the book," and he calls is Pseudepigrapha.

Or for that matter "Here is a source which documents the historical place of the Book of Enoch in the Armenian Bible." And it says that the Armenian Bible wasn't produced till the 4th century.

What I understand these sources to be indicating is that though the book was in circulation, it was not considered scripture yet. Just like the book of Revelation wasn't considered scripture when first written, Enoch was not considered to be scripture in the first couple of centuries either.

As the canon developed, it was never a part of the NT canon. As I said in a post much earlier in this thread, the Jews didn't even have a canon during ante-Nicean Christianity so the Christians accepted the LXX as their scriptures. Unless I have been terribly misinformed, Enoch is NOT found among the books in the LXX.

So, let me affirm that the early church did have access to Enoch, even used it, but I don't see evidence that it was considered to be scripture until around the 4th century with the translation and compilation of scriptures in Armenian. But, if others want to see its usage by Church Fathers as sufficient to consider it scripture, I'm not going to treat it as a hill worth dying on. I can see why reasonable people would reach that conclusion. I entered into this discussion of Enoch, not to debate its place as scripture, but because I believe that Lollerskates is not only misinformed, but also completely misrepresenting the relationship between Enoch and the Old Testament prophets.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I'm buying an NRSV apocrypha bible and was wondering what you guys think about the apocrypha. I've always wanted to read it, and I know it may not be truly biblical but to me there is no hurt in reading it. Does anyone here read the apocrypha and if so, what do you think about it?

FYI, the first King James bible contained all the books of the historical bible.

That's the same OT that Jesus and the apostles used as well. There are several references to those books in the New Testament.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is a scan of the table of contents of the orginal King Kames Bible of 1611

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

For you its not the same as saying its Scripture, however, there are scholars who make the critical historical judgment that it was considered such by certain Jews and Christians in the milieu of the early stages of the Church.

Isn't the presence of an ancient branch of Orthodoxy that DOES consider it Scripture a testament to an earlier time?

George Nickelsburg does the best job I've seen marshalling the evidence for the ancient acceptance of the book, here:

[c] [/c]

Here is a source which documents the historical place of the Book of Enoch in the Armenian Bible:

[c] [/c]

Also, Michael E. Stone wrote a series or articles for JSTOR about the Armenian Canon Lists. Enoch was considered one of the books of the Bible as late as the 13th C.

Can you provide a quotation from Nickelsburg that it was actually accepted as canon, or from Stone (whom I must admit I'm not familiar with) that it was regarded as fully canonical (as opposed to an appendix, along the lines of 2 Esdras or 4 Maccabees).

More to the point, Nickelsburg can at the same time fully admit that 1 Enoch is a canonical text in the Ethiopian tradition and that it is an intertestamental pseudepigraphal text with plenty of interesting insights into Second Temple Judaism but zero into the "historical" (?) Enoch. I doubt many people on these boards who tirelessly bring it up in GT can say quite the same. This being the Wesleyan forum, I expect there are more people here who can hold both of those in comfortable tension and understand the value of pseudepigrapha as pseudepigrapha. But that being the case 1 Enoch is much like those other works already mentioned- the Ascension of Isaiah, Joseph and Asenath, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- not as canonical but purely as historical documents that give us insights into the development of popular Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism, but with no more authoritative status than, say, the Homeric Hymns or the poems of Pindar and Sappho.

 

[RileyG]

I LOVE the Wisdom of Sirach, The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith and Tobit. 1 and 2 Maccabees are also really informative too. I think you can buy the 1611 KJV with apocrypha from amazon. I use the NAB, and St. Joseph Jerusalem Bible which are both Catholic. You can also buy the Orthodox Study Bible from amazon which has and additional psalm, 3 & 4 Maccabees in it as well. [I've never read it].

Hope this helps!! (?)

[I'm a Catholic not Protestant, obviously]

 

[SummaScriptura]

Contains quotes from ECFs referring to the disputed books of the O.T. as Scripture...

The Banana Republican: The "Deuterocanon" Is Scripture!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Contains quotes from ECFs referring to the disputed books of the O.T. as Scripture...

The Banana Republican: The "Deuterocanon" Is Scripture!

What am I supposed to be learning from this? I see nothing in here which refers to Enoch at all.

 

[Unix]

I believe Sirach & 1-2 Mc are God's Word, except for the passage in 2 Mc about praying for the dead. I don't care for the rest of the Deuterocanonicals.
Regarding the English versions, the NRSV and REB (Revised English Bible, the Apocrypha can be bought separately in print search for REB Apocrypha, and it's also available in most major Bible Study softwares) are the best. Additionally I use an eight translation parallel Apocrypha by John R. Kohlenberger III in print. For Sirach I use mainly the NRSV. For 2 Mc I use the REB.
Regarding Greek I use Septuaginta: SESB Edition by Hanhart (2006), LSJ (1996) - which I got cheap, as well as List of Septuagint Words Sharing Common Elements: Supplement to Concordance or Dictionary bu Jacques Xavier (1972) and the tools from the Logos Original Languages Library (which I bought on April 19. 2012):

The NRSV has a very inclusive group of Apocryphal (or other denominations would say Deuterocanonical) books including books accepted by branches of the Orthodox Church. The Oxford Annotated Bible in the NRSV is one of my favorite Biblical resources:

I did an exhaustive study comparing the versions of these books in English translation weighing the relative merits/demerits of each. I'll post that study later. (The NRSV scored very high if I recall)

 

[SummaScriptura]

What am I supposed to be learning from this? I see nothing in here which refers to Enoch at all.

Enoch? Enoch! Enoch who? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Enoch? Enoch! Enoch who? What on earth are you talking about?

What am *I* talking about? Don't you even recognize your own conversations?

I was having a disagreement with Lollerskates regarding the place of Enoch in the canon of scripture: http://www.christianforums.com/t7834861-2/#post66152011

You responded with a couple of sources that showed that Enoch was something that early Christians had access to, but nothing that showed they considered it scripture. You were asked to provide more to support your thesis and your next post was:

Contains quotes from ECFs referring to the disputed books of the O.T. as Scripture...

The Banana Republican: The "Deuterocanon" Is Scripture!

Perhaps you didn't intend this post to be a response to the previous inquiries. But Enoch and its place (or lack of place) in the canon is what I was talking about. I thought you were as well.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think you have the chronology of posts a bit crossed. I had previously responded to your questions with the best answers I have. My post from the Banana Republican was not related to that discussion with you, and was after some other posts.

The narrower list of disputed books of the O.T., which all Catholics and Orthodox share, is the focus of the Banana Republican article. The author is Catholic.

Sorry for the mixup.

I think the B.R. article adds to this discussion in that it marshals examples of the ECFs quoting some of the disputed books as Holy Writ.

Fact is, the article could actually be supplemented with quotes from ECFs using 1 Enoch as Scripture, its just that the B.R. article does not seek to do that.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The narrower list of disputed books of the O.T., which all Catholics and Orthodox share, is the focus of the Banana Republican article. The author is Catholic.

I think the B.R. article adds to this discussion in that it marshals examples of the ECFs quoting some of the disputed books as Holy Writ.

Fact is, the article could actually be supplemented with quotes from ECFs using 1 Enoch as Scripture, its just that the B.R. article does not seek to do that.

So, let's take a look at what that list of books (or partial books) actually is:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Daniel 3:24-90 (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children)
Daniel 13 (Story of Susanna)
Daniel 14 (Story of Bel and the Dragon)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

All of these were alluded to me in my first post (#8) in this thread. But it is not Tobit, Judith, or 1&2 Maccabees that is in question.

These books are the ones that were considered scripture by other groups within Christendom. NOT included in this list is Enoch. Not everything that was produced and/or used by 1st and 2nd century Christians was accepted as being scripture, even though it might be of use to the Church and read by Christians. That practice is not a sufficient standard in and of itself, and never was, to set something apart as scripture. So, while there may exist some supposedly Christian group today that sees 1 Enoch as scripture, I don't yet see anything that substantiates there being anyone in the Church -- pre-Nicene Church Father or otherwise -- who held such a view with respect to Enoch prior to the 4th century.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, let's take a look at what that list of books (or partial books) actually is:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Daniel 3:24-90 (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children)
Daniel 13 (Story of Susanna)
Daniel 14 (Story of Bel and the Dragon)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

All of these were alluded to me in my first post (#8) in this thread. But it is not Tobit, Judith, or 1&2 Maccabees that is in question.

These books are the ones that were considered scripture by other groups within Christendom. NOT included in this list is Enoch. Not everything that was produced and/or used by 1st and 2nd century Christians was accepted as being scripture, even though it might be of use to the Church and read by Christians. That practice is not a sufficient standard in and of itself, and never was, to set something apart as scripture. So, while there may exist some supposedly Christian group today that sees 1 Enoch as scripture, I don't yet see anything that substantiates there being anyone in the Church -- pre-Nicene Church Father or otherwise -- who held such a view with respect to Enoch prior to the 4th century.

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either...

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired." By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

This passage from the writings of Tertullian was written in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century and speaks of the Book of Enoch as a reliable text of Scripture.

 

[GraceSeeker]

This passage from the writings of Tertullian was written in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century and speaks of the Book of Enoch as a reliable text of Scripture.

And I thank you for providing it. It is both relevant and helpful.