I've begun taking a fresh look at the books of the Apocrypha, having been familiar with them when I used to be RC but having put them aside for the better part of a year. I've been wondering whether it's confessional to look at certain books of the Apocrypha as having for value than others. I've noticed this especially with Sirach (Ecclesiasticus might be a more accurate title, but I find people mistake it for Ecclesiastes). It was definitely edited (as shown by the two prologues) but I've found that it has some real good stuff in it also, although it has the tendency to be a works/law focused book.
The first half of Sirach 28 especially verse 2 bears some resemblance to the Lord's prayer.
Sirach 14:17-19 teaches the full strength of the law (Bach also sets this verse in his cantata 106 to do just that).
Sirach 47 also reiterates the promise of 2 Sam that David's throne will last forever, obviously fulfilled in Jesus (though the higher critical scholars would fail me for that interpretation).
And that prayer at the end has a couple of very nice verses (ch 51) although the very end tends to ascribe some praise to our own works (though these are works done by the believer, in my interpretation)
Any thoughts?
The first half of Sirach 28 especially verse 2 bears some resemblance to the Lord's prayer.
Sirach 14:17-19 teaches the full strength of the law (Bach also sets this verse in his cantata 106 to do just that).
Sirach 47 also reiterates the promise of 2 Sam that David's throne will last forever, obviously fulfilled in Jesus (though the higher critical scholars would fail me for that interpretation).
And that prayer at the end has a couple of very nice verses (ch 51) although the very end tends to ascribe some praise to our own works (though these are works done by the believer, in my interpretation)
Any thoughts?
