Do you read the apocrypha?

[Mr Dave]

I know some denominations have an 'official word' to say on this, but wondered where different individuals stood, particularly seen as most don't say much if anything.

By apocyphal/deutero-canonical I am referring specifically to

Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek), The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (w/ The Letter of Jeremiah), Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah & The Song of the 3 Children, Susana, Bel & The Dragon), 1&2 Maccabees.

Not other works such as the Assumption of Moses, Gospel of Adam & Eve, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas... (that could be interesting too though).

 

[ebia]

Yes, but not as much and not treating them as exactly the same sort of thing.

 

[jacks]

Yes, but not as much and not treating them as exactly the same sort of thing.

Same for me.

 

[MrPolo]

Since you mentioned "deuterocanon" you mean Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and some parts of Daniel and Esther (as opposed to truly "apocryphal" books like the Assumption of Moses or something). So my answer is yes and I consider them Scripture.

 

[Mr Dave]

Since you mentioned "deuterocanon" you mean Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and some parts of Daniel and Esther (as opposed to truly "apocryphal" books like the Assumption of Moses or something). So my answer is yes and I consider them Scripture.

Yes I was referring to the books that are found in some Bibles under the title of Apocrypha in a section between the Old Testament and the New, or in Bibles that follow the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture are regarded as the deutero-canonical books. The ones you've mentioned.

(I'll edit the OP)

 

[heritage36]

I actually looked into this quite a bit for a while because I was strongly wondering if by chance we were decieved into thinking some books that they may not have known for sure are not scriptural could in fact be scriptural. I thought if that possibility were true, it would be a huge deception and holding many of us back in our studies. One of the main books I was curious about was the Book of Enoch, which seemed to have perhaps the most support for possibly being actual scripture, and even seems to be referenced in Jude, or at least so I thought at the time. I was cleared up on this by a few very knowledgeable people, including one individual I trust the thoughts of on scripture who even wrote a article specifically why Enoch seems to be not very much worthwhile, and definitely not scriptural. He does say and I agree that there are uses for apocrypha in that you can see how some words are used and get understanding in that way, as well as some of the words in the original text languages. I will put a link to it below if anyone is interested in reading it, because it pretty much was the main thing that turned me away from the apocrypha. hope that is helpful!

The Book of Enoch « Precepts

 

[ittarter]

Yeah, and I count some of the "canonical" books as pretty much apocryphal. I don't read them much, and when I do, I read them with some salt on the side

 

[Ryan Collins]

I read the dueterocanonical books in the same light that I read/hear sermons and theological books. While they are not "Scripture," they are very beneficial to the life of believers. Sirach is actually one of my favorite books outside of the canonical Scriptures.

 

[Mr Dave]

Sirach is actually one of my favorite books outside of the canonical Scriptures.

I'm with you there, there's some great stuff in the big 'S.'

 

[jonki the eagle]

Yes i read them because i want to know what is in there, but i know it's not Gods word.

 

[mmmcounts]

I know some denominations have an 'official word' to say on this, but wondered where different individuals stood, particularly seen as most don't say much if anything.

By apocyphal/deutero-canonical I am referring specifically to

Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek), The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (w/ The Letter of Jeremiah), Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah & The Song of the 3 Children, Susana, Bel & The Dragon), 1&2 Maccabees.

Not other works such as the Assumption of Moses, Gospel of Adam & Eve, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas... (that could be interesting too though).

Most of my exposure to books of the Septuagint not included in the Tanakh comes from Greek class. They're useful when you want a bit more of a challenge when translating. When it's something from the New Testament, there's a good chance that you can get just a couple of words right and fill in the spaces from memory without actually doing the work of translation. When it's something from 1 Esdras, any of the 4 Maccabees, or Tobit, though, you're forced to really do the work.

The only one of the deuterocanonicals that I have any exposure to is Tobit. I think it's freaking weird, and I would imagine that I'd have a slightly different attitude toward Scripture in general if I were able to flip open to Tobit and call that "the Word of God."

Of the truly "apocryphal" books (that is, those outside the Septuagint and therefore outside the EO canon), Enoch is the most interesting to me. It names quite a few angels and demons that aren't mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Even if the stories of what they do are basically false, I'm still kind of interested in knowing whether or not there actually is (for example) an angel named Raphael or a demon named Azazel.

 

[JTornado1]

I read the Apocrypha for the first time in the Smith-Goodspeed translation. In 2002, I read the RSV Apocrypha, which included the books used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I currently have a copy of the Apocrypha in the God's Word translation. It's interesting to read, althogh I don't put it on the same level as Scripture.

 

[Etsi]

I put yes, but there really needs to be an "other".

The "apocrypha" is actually the deutero-canonicals. There used to be a set of books called the apocrypha (not the deutero-canonicals that are today called the apocrypha by other groups). That set of books was dropped by the early church fathers because they were not considered sound. The deutero-canonicals were kept because they were considered sound until the Reformation when certain things found in them did not fit the box the Reformed and Radicals had created for themselves. Even today's Reformed though (listed in the Confessions and that they deutero-canonicals were included in the original Geneva of 1560) stated that they could be read for edification, but only in as much as they agreed with their beliefs.

 

[JBMM]

Yes, I read them. I am Catholic, after all.

 

[Mr Dave]

Yes, I read them. I am Catholic, after all.

It's ok, nobody's perfect

 

[razeontherock]

Of the truly "apocryphal" books (that is, those outside the Septuagint and therefore outside the EO canon), Enoch is the most interesting to me. It names quite a few angels and demons that aren't mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Even if the stories of what they do are basically false, I'm still kind of interested in knowing whether or not there actually is (for example) an angel named Raphael or a demon named Azazel.

First of all, Jesus quoted Enoch. A LOT. If you want to then write it off as having no merit, who are you arguing with? Certainly not me.

I know why it's not Scripture, and I agree. Most of it, probably some 90% or more, has no value or application whatsoever. But SOME things in it are fascinating, and add insight into Jesus' words. (As an aside, Jasher's kinda like that. The first 23 chapters really fill in some blanks in Genesis, opening it up quite a bit to being better understood.) And in answer to this, I know someone who has had extensive contact w/ many different spirits and they found the list(s) of names in Enoch to be quite helpful so what does that tell you?

Anyway, after 25 years of basically reading nothing but the Bible, the Lord has laid it on my heart to seek these things out. The books attributed to Adam and Eve I consider to be Christian fiction, I'm sad to say. The Epistle of Barnabas is interesting.

 

[Mattsanity]

Sirach is absolutely amazing. I was just blown away by the wisdom. it's Proverbs 2.0.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I know some denominations have an 'official word' to say on this, but wondered where different individuals stood, particularly seen as most don't say much if anything.

## Most books, or most individuals, or most Churches ?

By apocyphal/deutero-canonical I am referring specifically to

Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek), The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (w/ The Letter of Jeremiah), Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah & The Song of the 3 Children, Susana, Bel & The Dragon), 1&2 Maccabees.

Not other works such as the Assumption of Moses, Gospel of Adam & Eve, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas... (that could be interesting too though).

## Frequently - Ecclesiasticus AKA Ben Sira, & "2 Esdras", which is three books:

• chaps 1 & 2 = 5 Ezra
• chaps 3-14 = 4 Ezra AKA the Salathiel-Apocalypse
• chaps 15 & 16 = 6 Ezra

I'm on Judith just now. I like all of them. I wish the Prayer of Manasseh were in the canon, but at least Ecclesiasticus is.

Someone mentioned (1) Enoch - that's not properly speaking apocryphal, but as to the book itself, it isn't to everyone's taste, but I like it, & I wish it were canonical (It is in the Coptic Church )

 

[Hairy Tic]

Yeah, and I count some of the "canonical" books as pretty much apocryphal. I don't read them much, and when I do, I read them with some salt on the side

## Esther (w/o the deutero additions) is one book of the Bible I don't like. Not because it doesn't mention God at all, or is secular in tone, so much as because it is vindictive & mean-spirited. I can see no moral difference betw. the morality of the Book of Esther & the morality of the Final Solution. Maybe someone's written a commentary showing there are hidden depths of moral beauty in it - if so, I'd like to come across it. It's a truly detestable book The Book of Esther seems to have no purpose, or moral content - unlike Ecclesiastes. There is more divinity in the Epic of Gilgamesh or in some of the Babylonian Wisdom Literature, or in Homer, than in Esther.

"It is an unpopular book. More - it is a controversial book. More - it is a book about which no less a character than Martin Luther said that he 'hated' it. That it was 'perverse' - 'filled with much pagan impropriety'."

http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/the-book-of-esther-139103.html