Did Paul urge us to study the Apocrypha?

[St_Worm2]

Where did the Essenes refer to them as apocryphal or pseudepigraphal?

Hello Jas3, I haven't read any source materials from the Essenes themselves, what I said here was based on what I was taught, years ago, along with what various Jewish learning sites have to say about these books both historically and today, sites that I went to again recently to make sure that what I remembered about the intertestamental books from the Jewish POV was correct (before posting in this thread).

I did mention that if any of the 1st Century Jewish sects considered them to be part of the Holy Writ, it seemed to me that it would have been the Essenes, but they never did.

That said, I believe that they all considered them to be important for many reasons, especially historically (just like the Jews do today), but not binding on heart/conscience like the God-breathed Holy Scriptures are.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[jas3]

Hello Jas3, I haven't read any source materials from the Essenes themselves, what I said here was based on what I was taught, years ago, along with what various Jewish learning sites have to say about these books both historically and today, sites that I went to again recently to make sure that what I remembered about the intertestamental books from the Jewish POV was correct (before posting in this thread).

So this would seem to be an extrapolation then. All we really know about the Essenes is that they made copies of certain writings; we don't have, to my knowledge, any commentary from the Essenes on their beliefs about the canonical status of any of these writings. We can only infer the importance they placed on these writings by the fact that they were considered important enough to be worth copying, and perhaps we could tell something about the relative importance of one book to another if there were many copies of one book and only a few of another, but I don't think we could reasonably come to a conclusion as precise as some books being "important, but not part of Holy Writ" just based on that evidence.

 

[JSRG]

Now, I agree that the Apocryphal books are useful, principally as history books, and that they are still very important today, but not as the inspired/breathed word of God, which they are not (in fact, even the RCC, which holds them to be inspired in some sense, does not include them as part of the Canon of Scripture itself, but as a "deuterocanon" instead). So, while Paul ~may~ have recommended them to Timothy for some reason, especially since Timothy was a Hellenistic Jew, we have no evidence that he did.

The Catholic Church considers the "deuterocanon" to be Scripture. The term deuterocanon does not imply any lesser canonical status in Catholicism, but is rather a word of convenience to denote those books that the Catholic Church accepts as canon but are not in the standard Protestant canon, as well as differentiating them from works called "apocrypha" that are in neither the Catholic canon nor the standard Protestant canon.

 

[St_Worm2]

So this would seem to be an extrapolation then.

Hello again Jas3, I think that it's probably a bit more than that, unless we take the position that the Jews know little to nothing about their own books or history.

That the Jewish sects did not accept these books as canonical or include them in the Hebrew Bible is hardly new news. The Septuagint included them, for the most part anyway, though interestingly, we do possess a number of Septuagint codices that do not.

There's also the church to consider, since we know that the early church did not begin to consider them to be canonical until at least AD 200. I believe that the move to include them followed Jerome's choice to include them in his Bible (even though he did not personally believe that they should be considered as canonical either).

Finally, the Reformers also rejected them (as canonical) because of 1. doctrinal and theological concerns, but also, in large part, because 2. they knew that the Jews did not hold them to be canonical (though many of the Reformers continued to include some of them in their Bibles as important, non-canonical additions, just like we continue to do today in many of our Bibles, including Protestant Bibles).

--David

 

[jas3]

Hello again Jas3, I think that it's probably a bit more than that, unless we take the position that the Jews know little to nothing about their own books or history.

Modern Rabbinical Jews don't have access to any knowledge about Second Temple Judaism that we don't.

That the Jewish sects did not accept these books as canonical or include them in the Hebrew Bible is hardly new news.

The Hebrew Bible was standardized after the Resurrection and the end of Second Temple Judaism, so it doesn't really have any bearing on what 1st century Jews considered to be Scripture.

The Septuagint included them, for the most part anyway, though interestingly, we do possess a number of Septuagint codices that do not.

The fact that there are any codices that include them, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther that aren't present in the Masoretic Text, indicates that at least some Jews considered these books to be Scripture.

There's also the church to consider, since we know that the early church did not begin to consider them to be canonical until at least AD 200.

Do we? What's your source on that?

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The thing is, @Godsunworthyservant/GUS seemed to be insinuating that the Jews held the apocryphal books to be God-breathed works and therefore, part of the Canon. My main reason for joining the thread was to counter that argument and to point out (about the Jews and the apocryphal books) that what the Jews believed about these books 2,400 years ago they still believe today

You're reading between the lines. That's not what I said. I said that certain Jewish sects studied them and considered them "scripture". There was no approved "canon" until at the earliest during the Hasmonean dynasty between 140-40BCE with many scholars arguing it wasn't fixed until the 2nd century CE. My only question is was Paul exhorting Timothy to study the apocryphal books.

 

[Valletta]

You're reading between the lines. That's not what I said. I said that certain Jewish sects studied them and considered them "scripture". There was no approved "canon" until at the earliest during the Hasmonean dynasty between 140-40BCE with many scholars arguing it wasn't fixed until the 2nd century CE. My only question is was Paul exhorting Timothy to study the apocryphal books.

The Church chose those books from the Greek Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from.