Did Paul urge us to study the Apocrypha?

[YeshuaFan]

I appreciate that there is Jewish history in there, but off the top of my head I am personally not aware of anything especially edifying, or relevant for salvation. But I am happy to be corrected by Christians of any denomination who know more of it than I do...

The reformers looked to those books as useful for history and background, but NOT to be used for doctrines and practices, as were not inspired

 

[The Liturgist]

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

The answer to the question depends on which Protestant church you are talking about, since contrary to popular belief not all Protestants limit themselves to the 66 book canon - indeed the deuterocanonical books can even be used as a source of doctrine in the Episcopal Church and certain other high church Anglican provinces in which the 39 Articles of Religion are no longer in force, and also John Calvin interestingly enough regarded Baruch to be protocanonical, a view not shared by most Calvinists, although it would be interesting and thereoretically possible for a paleo-Calvinist denomination to arrive based on the exact teachings of Calvin, which would be very intreresting indeed, since our friend @hedrick has shown me that John Calvin taught and believed in a lot of things the Orthodox believe in, that I hadn’t expected, and furthermore we do know that many of the early Reformed churches were liturgical; indeed I have a book which is a collection of early Reformed liturgies from the 16th and 17th centuries, and its quite surprising the extent to which some of them were liturgical, since the experience with the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian and Puritan oppositiion to the Book of Common Prayer might cause one to suppose that all Calvinists are aliturgical by definition.

The other question we have to ask ourselves regarding St. Paul is “What apocrypha?” since there are different books considered to be apocryphal by different people.

 

[Radagast]

The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha".

Quite the opposite, actually.

The Pharisees, who gave rise to modern Jews, preferred the Hebrew canon used by Protestants and modern Jews.

 

[Radagast]

I am unaware of any doctrine in the Catholic Church that was established by the Deuterocanonicals. Certainly, like the rest of the Bible, those books document and substantiate doctrine.

There are places in the Catholic Catechism where the Deuterocanonicals provide the Sccriptural support.

 

[Valletta]

There are places in the Catholic Catechism where the Deuterocanonicals provide the Sccriptural support.

The 73 books of the Bible are essentially liturgical books. I don't know how many of the 73 books are quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but It does not surprise me that any particular book or books would be used to show support.

 

[Valletta]

The reformers looked to those books as useful for history and background, but NOT to be used for doctrines and practices, as were not inspired

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible the decision to include was not based on historical value but upon if the particular text was God-breathed.

 

[Valletta]

The other question we have to ask ourselves regarding St. Paul is “What apocrypha?” since there are different books considered to be apocryphal by different people.

While the Catholic Church rejected all apocryphal books for the Bible the Church does find some apocryphal works to be of value.

 

[bèlla]

My interest in the apocrypha wasn’t predicated on mandates nor is that the reason I continue to study them. Some behaviors are the result of conscience or curiosity and others arise because of our gifts. There’s a lot of things I do that aren’t required per se but my spirit drives me nonetheless.

~bella

 

[The Liturgist]

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible the decision to include was not based on historical value but upon if the particular text was God-breathed.

Note that some Eastern Catholics use a slightly different arrangement of books than the Western Catholics, which includes slightly different material, which is regarded as deuterocanonical in some of the Eastern Catholic churches, for example, Psalm 151. This is because they’re using the Greek Bible, translations of the Greek bible, or the Church Slavonic Bible, or the Syriac Peshitta, or the Coptic Bible, or the Ethiopian Bible or the Classical Armenian and Classical Georgian Bibles.

However it is generally the case that in all essential details, all Catholic and Orthodox churches agree to what amounts to the same canon, with minor differences, the major exception being the Ethiopians, who have a few additional books in their Old Testament, and also a few different books (their books on the Maccabees, I and II Meqyaban, are slightly different, but not in a doctrine-influencing way, from the Koine Greek accounts of the Maccabees familiar to everyone else).

Some people make a big deal over the fact the Ethiopians Orthodox have 1 Enoch in their canon, but the important thing to note there is that the Ethiopians do not interpret it literally in a manner that conflicts with Orthodox doctrine; doctrinally the Ethiopians are identical to the Coptic Orthodox Church of which they were a part until the 20th century. The Eritreans have it.

By the way, both Eritrean Orthodox and Eritrean Catholics (both Ethiopic-rite Eastern Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics) are experiencing severe persecution under the country’s current unhinged dictator, so we should pray for them fervently.

 

[The Liturgist]

The 73 books of the Bible are essentially liturgical books.

This is an extremely important point to be made. The function of the Bible is as a collection of liturgical books, that are to be read or ideally sung in church (in the Orthodox Church we normally sing the Gospel and the Psalms and usually chant the other books as well). This was their function in Judaism, with the Torah Scroll, the Megillot, and the Haftarah, and this is their function in Christianity (in Orthodoxy and Byzantine Rite Catholicism you have the Gospel Book, or Evangelion, a book containing the Epistles (called the Apostol) and a book containing old testament lessons (Prophetologion). In the Roman Rite, and derivatives such as the Anglican and Lutheran rites, this is reflected in the tradition of calling one side of the altar the Gospel Side, and the other the Epistle Side, for in a Low Mass or Missa Cantata the priest reads the appointed Gospel and Epistle from that said of the altar, whereas in a Solemn High Mass the Subdeacon reads the Epistle and a Deacon reads the Gospel.

 

[YeshuaFan]

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible the decision to include was not based on historical value but upon if the particular text was God-breathed.

Only the 66 canonized books were inspired and God bereathed, as the Catholic add ons were not

 

[The Liturgist]

Only the 66 canonized books were inspired and God bereathed, as the Catholic add ons were not

Says who? No Christian from the Bible says that (indeed St. Jude quotes from 1 Enoch), and no one from the early church said that, and indeed John Calvin even regarded Baruch to be protocanon.

Have you read any of the other books? The Wisdom of Solomon is one of the most important and beautiful books in the Old Testament, which establishes a clear prophecy of the crucifixion of our Lord, and also a clear promise of the Resurrection and the Life of the World to Come. It is much more important to many churches than some of the Minor Prophets, or Numbers for that matter, which is interesting but not as important as the Psalms or Genesis or the first half of Exodus as a work of Christological prophecy.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Says who? No Christian from the Bible says that (indeed St. Jude quotes from 1 Enoch), and no one from the early church said that, and indeed John Calvin even regarded Baruch to be protocanon.

Have you read any of the other books? The Wisdom of Solomon is one of the most important and beautiful books in the Old Testament, which establishes a clear prophecy of the crucifixion of our Lord, and also a clear promise of the Resurrection and the Life of the World to Come. It is much more important to many churches than some of the Minor Prophets, or Numbers for that matter, which is interesting but not as important as the Psalms or Genesis or the first half of Exodus as a work of Christological prophecy.

Rome did not give to us the scriptures, the Holy Spirit did, and the canon was already fixed by end of first century as the 66 we now have

 

[Valletta]

Only the 66 canonized books were inspired and God bereathed, as the Catholic add ons were not

The canon of the Bible, the 73 books, containing the same books in the same order we have today, was established in the late 300s. Over a thousand years later Protestants dropped seven books from their version of the Bible. Luther tried to get other books (such as Revelation) dropped but was unsuccessful. I should say Protestants decided to not recognize those books as God-breathed, but they remained in the physical bindings of the King James Bible until the 1800s. There were no 66 books Bibles before the reformation, and there is nothing in the Bible about waiting a thousands years before deciding which books are Holy Scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

Rome did not give to us the scriptures,

Indeed, the Orthodox Church of Alexandria under St. Athanasius was responsible for the New Testament Canon. As for the Old Testament canon, the autocephalous early churches never agreed upon one, but none of them used the 66 book Masoretic canon.

Indeed, since you are using an Aramaic name for our Lord, you should probably read up on the history of the Peshitta (the Aramaic language bible used by the persecuted Christians of the Middle East). It never had the 66 book canon, which originated with the Masoretes, a Jewish community, in the 8th century AD. It also initially had a 22 book New Testament canon (and some East Syriac copies still lack 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation) before the persecuted* Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch added the remaining five books of the Athanasian canon to all West Syriac copies from a translation by Mar Thoma of Harqel.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church was in communion with the Oriental Orthodox until the 5th century, and the Eastern Orthodox until the 9th century (with a brief restoration of communion with some Eastern Orthodox from the 10th through the mid 11th century, and also the Armenian Apostolic Church around the 13th century), but was never in control of any of these churches (see canons 6-7 of Nicaea), so one cannot use in any coherent way polemics from the Catholic vs. Protestant false dichotomy on the Orthodox; indeed Martin Luther was inspired to break away from the Roman Catholics when he realized the Ethiopian Orthodox had never been under Roman control.

Thus, insofar as we, and certain Protestant churches such as the Reformed Church of Geneva during the leadership of John Calvin, and the Episcopal Church and other Anglican churches in the US, used or continue to use books outside of the 66 book Masoretic canon, it cannot be attributed to Roman Catholic influence.

the Holy Spirit did,

That’s true insofar as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church are guided by the Holy Spirit.

* The blood of Syriac Orthodox martyrs has been shed at different times by Justinian, or in his name at least, and the Romans of that era, and by the Saracens, and by the Muslim warlord Tamerlane in the 12th century and his sons, and by the Ottoman Empire in the Sayfo (Aramaic for sword), the genocide of 1915 targeting Christians of Aramaic, Assyrian, Armenian and Pontic Greek ethnicity, and more recently by ISIS and by the new Islamic dictatorship in Syria. Along with the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Chaldean church, the Melkite church, the churches in Eritrea, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Anglican Church of Pakistan, it is one of the most severely persecuted churches in existence.

 

[The Liturgist]

Luther tried to get other books (such as Revelation) dropped but was unsuccessful.

That’s true, he wanted to drop James, Jude, Revelation and Hebrews but was talked out of it by Philip Melancthon. Interestingly the Lutherans have an open canon, so Lutherans can freely use the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

 

[The Liturgist]

I should say Protestants decided to not recognize those books as God-breathed, but they remained in the physical bindings of the King James Bible until the 1800s

That’s not true of all Protestants; some Anglicans always viewed them as inspired, but other low church Anglicans were opposed to them, and so as to avoid civil war the Church of England declared the books in question to be used for moral instruction and edification, and included them in the lectionary, but not as sources of doctrine, but this restriction is no longer in force in many Anglican churches such as the Episcopal Church and the continuing Anglican churches, since the 39 articles were dropped.

You can get a complete KJV; they unfortunately have become rare - the reason why these books stopped being included is the British government stopped requiring them to be included, and the non-conformists and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not use them, so removing them allowed the printers to save costs and make more money.

I myself regard it as false advertising for a Bible lacking these books to be sold as a “King James Version”; they should be sold as an “Abridged King James Version” since that is what they are.

Also as I noted previously, John Calvin regarded Baruch to be protocanonical but unfortunately other Reformed leaders did not. But their pain in terms of losing access to these beautiful books is our gain, since the Catholics and Orthodox have the competitove advantage of being able offer people reliable access to Bibles that have these very important, God-breathed books included. And in Orthodoxy, and I have heard this is the case in your church as well, we have been getting many new converts, in our case, so many as to exceed attrition without factoring in the high birth rates of existing “ethnic” Orthodox Christians.