Hey guys. I'm a new member here, and i've got to ask yous something. Now this has been bothering me for quite some time: How reliable is the Apocrypha? Why was it removed? And what's up with all these other texts that have been found? (Dead Sea Scrolls, DSS, Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagent) What is up with these texts? Is it okay to read them? Should i read them? I understand that the catholic bible (KJVA) has the apocrypha, i'm not catholic. Please, help me out guys. Thank you.
I have to wonder what you mean by "reliable"?
The texts are not as solid by far as the New Testament, and indeed even the Old Testament books.
We have many fewer early witnesses and there are some significant disgreements of what we do have. It even gets to the point where books used by the Ethiopian Church are clearly not the same books as those used by other Orthodox Churches with the same name.
That's just a couple of points but in that way, I'd have to say the Apocryphal books are less reliable.
Now if you mean trustworthy as far as what to put your faith in, then the various groups are really in quite wide agreement. Again, they are not as trustworthy. We have the Orthodox Churches where they are not used for doctrine for instance. There have been people over the years who have tried to do that, but the general decision is not to use them for doctrine.
Then there is the Catholic Church, it was there decided to include many of them, not as many as the Orthodox. The question of whether or not to use them for doctrine was left an open question by Trent. So again, not as reliable.
The Protestant Reformers used them the same way for the benefit of the church but not as a source of doctrine, so again, not as reliable.
Assuming you mean reliable as in something to put your faith in.
One of the most open churches concerning this is the Ethiopian church. Where a lot is made by many of their large canon, but authority is not treated like an on or off light switch, they have different levels of authority.
It's really not hard to grasp for most people if you simply don't look at the bible. For instance most of us have references we use. They really vary in how reliable we would find them. Just because a book isn't as reliable doesn't mean we don't use it. And so it has been through history in the church. Difficulty seems to come from once people look at the bible, they want to treat everything in it as a on or off light switch. The books called apocrypha or deuterocanonicals have really never been treated as equal to the other books.
If you want to follow the historic practices, you neither throw them away nor do you base your doctrine upon them. They are useful to see the history of the Jews, and the context within Jesus walked.
If you take the New Testament, you see the difference. While there do seem to be allusions and references to what was wriitten there, they are not held up by Jesus or the Apostles as the standard of "It is written" type of absolutely trustworthy proof.
Marv
