The Apocrypha.

[elduderrino]

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.

 

[BereanTodd]

The apocrypha can actually be good to read, just do not put it on the same level as Scripture. It was not removed, it was never originally considered Scripture. Those books were written by the Jews, during the time between the OT and NT writtings. The Jews themselves never considered them to be Scripture. The early church did not include them in the cannon of Scripture. They were added much later to the official cannon.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are nothing new, they are various writtings found in the Dead Sea region begining around 1947. We actually have copies of every OT book with one exception from the DSS, and they give us even greater understandingandconfidence of the Biblical record that has been passed down to us.

The Latin Vulgate is merely the Latin translation of the scriptures which is one of the core texts used by the RCC. It of course bears great historical signifigance, but is nottoo instructive for our study today. We have countless Greek MSS we can go to, and Latin is not our language.

The Septuigant (or LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, and it also is of great value. In fact often when the NT writers were quoting the OT they were quoting the LXX version of the writtings.

Then of course you have the books that you do not mention, the early gnostic writtings. These were always considered heretical and are dated much later than the other NT writtings. These are interesting to study if you are interested in the history of the church and such things, but they should have no role or place in our spiritual lives or such studies.

 

[Gareth]

When you read the Holy Scriptures and then you read the Apocrypha the difference is plain. The Scriptures are a product of holy spirit and that spirit can be felt throughout the Bible. When you are touched by spirit there is nothing to compare it against. When reading books of the Apocrypha like Tobit, Judith or the supposed missing part of Daniel there is no feeling of spirit. Further, many of the writings have been regarded as just stories. The only interesting part of the Apocrypha are the Maccabees which fill in the historical gap after Ezra and Nehemiah and before the book of Matthew.

 

[E.C.]

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.

The Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew by order of Ptolemy sometime after Alexander the Great's death. Ptolemy inherited Egypt and surrounding area of the empire. He was curious as to what the Jews believed and ordered about seventy or so Jewish scholars from the various tribes to translate the texts into Greek.
The Greek Septuagint includes the Deutero-canonical books (also called 'Apocrypha') and is used by the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Old Testament.

The Deutero-canon was removed sometime after Christ's Ascension by the Jews for political reasons. I have not read the entire Bible (much less these books) to know what they're about, but from what I have heard from those that have, they may have some bits of prophesy that point to Jesus as being the Messiah which must have been deemed inconvenient in the eyes of the Jews. It was removed for political reasons and King James I of England used this revised text (not the Septuagint) in his translation of the Bible.

I see no reason why we can not read the Septuagint, Vulgate, KJV, whatever; or should fear reading them. I prefer to stick with the version of my choosing for personal reasons, but see no reason to look at the Vulgate or KJV should I one day feel demented enough to compare Scriptures!

The Deutero-canonical books were moved for political reasons and were not "re-added" by King James for political reasons.

I have not studied the matter of the Dead Sea Scrolls enough to hold any real opinon of them.

 

[elduderrino]

Thank you guys! You've been very informative. I appreciate ya'll for taking the time to help me out. Thanks again!

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Hello El.
What is now called the Apocrypha was part of the Christian Bible since its formulation. These books were part of the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. This translation was in use, by many Jews, during the time of Jesus and is the source of many of the New Testament quotes from Jesus. Thus, this gives apostolic credence to this translation.
Though some Churches have removed what they call the Apocrypha or have separated them into a section apart from the OT, the ancient Churches have them in their original places. If one were not prejudiced by what has been said about these writings, they would not know the difference by simply reading them.

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?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were ancient writings from a Jewish cult called the Essenes. They contain the OT writings plus others as well.
The Latin Vulgate is a latin translation of the OT Septuagint and the NT by Saint Jerome in the 5th century AD.

Is it okay to read them?

There is no reason to read the DSS, Latin Vulgate, or Septuagint. It is perfectly fine to read them if you wish.

Should i read them?

As for what is now called the apocrypha, that is your choice. They will not lead you to any more salvation than if you didn't read them. Have you read the entire OT? Most christians haven't but are still faithful.

I understand that the catholic bible (KJVA) has the apocrypha, i'm not catholic. Please, help me out guys. Thank you.

The KJV has never been Catholic but the original KJV did contain the the now called apocrypha. There is still a KJV with the apocrypha, though.

Yarddog

 

[MrPolo]

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 can recommend no better book on this history of the deuterocanonical books than Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. The following books, called by some "apocrypha" are Scripture:
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

 

[MrPolo]

The Scriptures are a product of holy spirit and that spirit can be felt throughout the Bible. When you are touched by spirit there is nothing to compare it against. When reading books of the Apocrypha like Tobit, Judith or the supposed missing part of Daniel there is no feeling of spirit.

You should have one of your friends select 20 lesser known passages from Scripture and 20 passage from the Apocrypha, and then quiz you, to see how well you are able to discern the Spirit.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Scriptures are a product of holy spirit and that spirit can be felt throughout the Bible. When you are touched by spirit there is nothing to compare it against. When reading books of the Apocrypha like Tobit, Judith or the supposed missing part of Daniel there is no feeling of spirit.

You should have one of your friends select 20 lesser known passages from Scripture and 20 passage from the Apocrypha, and then quiz you, to see how well you are able to discern the Spirit.

I agree with MrPolo.

When Woden says he can feel the Spirit throughout the Bible that's a pretty subjective idea isn't it? What if Woden was given parts of the 66-book Bible with which he is unfamiliar and parts of the books inappropraitely referred to as Apocrypha with which he was unfamiliar and then asked to judge whether he felt the spirit or not? I have a hunch. My hunch is Woden would not be sure which group of books the quotes were from. Truth is, there are quite a number of portions of the New Testament based upon books of the "Apocrypha".

 

[elduderrino]

I agree with mrPolo and SummaScriptura on that one Woden, respectfully. It was confusing for me to choose whether i should consider,or accept, the Apocrypha as holy scripture...but after alot of thought and prayer...i will accept it only as reading material. I agree with BereanTodd,


"The apocrypha can actually be good to read, just do not put it on the same level as Scripture. It was not removed, it was never originally considered Scripture. Those books were written by the Jews, during the time between the OT and NT writtings. The Jews themselves never considered them to be Scripture. The early church did not include them in the cannon of Scripture. They were added much later to the official cannon."

I've done alot of research on this topic nonstop over these past couple of days, and i am just...PLUUH! My brain is fried dudes, that's how much reading i've done. I'd appreciate anymore information that anyone can provide, even if it's just your opinions, I wanna read it. Thank you!

 

[SummaScriptura]

The apocrypha can actually be good to read, just do not put it on the same level as Scripture. It was not removed, it was never originally considered Scripture.<snip>

What if it can be demonstrated that the books perjoritively referred to as Apocrypha were in use as scripture from the earliest days of the Church?

If you read the roll-call of the faithful from Hebrews chapter 11, there is an underlying reliance and familiarity by the writer with the Greek Old Testament, in preference to the Hebrew Old Testament:

He writes, the world was created out of things "not visible" (Genesis 1:3 in the LXX has the unformed earth as "invisible"), Enoch "pleased God" and "was not found", (Genesis 5:24-25 in the LXX substitutes "walked with God" with "pleased God", and "he was not" with "he was not found"), Jacob "worshipped on his staff" (The last verse of Genesis 47 in the LXX has Jacob leaning on his staff, not his bedpost), etc.

Continuing on with the chapter we are confronted with a veritable who's who of the Old Testament as the writer applauds the faith of the forefathers in a loosely chronological order.

Then the chapter leaves behind the familiar territory of the Old Testament stories and progresses into a section that does not seem to fit very well into the books of the Hebrew Old Testament, "Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated&#8212; of whom the world was not worthy&#8212; wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."

Ah, but here if one refers to the Septuagint O.T. instead instead of the Hebrew O.T., (which adds back those books perjoritively referred to as "Apocrypha"), then suddenly, these references match much better with the Old Testament accounts found in the LXX! The writer had not in fact diverted from the O.T. for his chronology, he was merely using a more complete one, the Septuagint O.T.

So,

1. The oldest extant copies of the LXX have the books perjoritively called "Apocrypha" included
2. The writer of Hebrews draws upon the Greek Old Testament not the Hebrew in chapter 11
3. The writer then refers to events which are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament but which ARE found in our oldest Septuagint text

It is my conclusion therefore, during the 1st century the Septuagint already included the books referred to by modern detractors as "Apocrypha". So we conclude those books were used as scripture by the Church from the time of the Apostles.

Helpful resources:
NETS- New English Translation of the Septuagint
ESV- English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha

 

[E.C.]

It is my conclusion therefore, during the 1st century the Septuagint already included the books referred to by modern detractors as "Apocrypha". So we conclude those books were used as scripture by the Church from the time of the Apostles.

Bingo!

Because, Greek was the lingua franca at the time. Or for the common-speakers, Greek in the time of Christ and up until the fall of the Western Roman Empire (approx.) the equivalent of English in today's world. Greek was spoken and understood by traders, philosophors, officials (religious and civil) and basically anybody that wanted to get around outside of their linguistic area. Why push a language spoken and understood by very few, when we can instead use one that is already spoken and understood by most? Thus, that is why the Church used the Greek Septuagint with the Deutero-cannon not omitted. As said before, the Deutero-cannon was taken out by the Jews some time long after Pentecost and since we are Christians and not Jews, I wonder why some Jewish decision on texts should affect Christianity after Pentecost.

Helpful resources:
NETS- New English Translation of the Septuagint
ESV- English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha

Or: http://orthodoxstudybible.com/

Go ahead, call me a used car salesman for that last one.

 

[elduderrino]

why buy those bibles from amazon, when you could download them for free (legally) from
e-sword.com. The website actually encourages people to download it. It's really cool, you can get a bunch of translations, even translations in other languages. I like it alot. So...yeah, hit that up homies! >I gotta tell ye, i think you guys are making some good points, keep it up.

 

[SummaScriptura]

why buy those bibles from amazon, when you could download them for free (legally) from
e-sword.com. The website actually encourages people to download it. It's really cool, you can get a bunch of translations, even translations in other languages. I like it alot. So...yeah, hit that up homies! >I gotta tell ye, i think you guys are making some good points, keep it up.

I have the downloads. Software cannot be beat for the search engine functionality. What would take me days to research and pull together references on a subject can take less than 5 minutes now. Praise God for that!

But doesn't anyone like to crack open a book anymore? I confess, it was only this year after many that I've gotten back to reading print on pages bound into books. Its nice to remove yourself from the PC, sit in a comfy chair with a good light and relax and read with the dog on your lap, maybe, just maybe, you'll sneak in a nappy-poo! Try it! You just might like it!

 

[BigNorsk]

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

 

[MrPolo]

I've done alot of research on this topic nonstop over these past couple of days, and i am just...PLUUH! My brain is fried dudes, that's how much reading i've done. I'd appreciate anymore information that anyone can provide, even if it's just your opinions, I wanna read it. Thank you!

If you can get your hands on it, I must highly recommend the book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. It reads almost like a reference book, starting with the earliest Christians and what each of them wrote about which books were considered divinely inspired.

 

[E.C.]

But doesn't anyone like to crack open a book anymore? I confess, it was only this year after many that I've gotten back to reading print on pages bound into books. Its nice to remove yourself from the PC, sit in a comfy chair with a good light and relax and read with the dog on your lap, maybe, just maybe, you'll sneak in a nappy-poo! Try it! You just might like it!

I'm reminded of the day I looked around a Borders store and realized that reading is becoming a lost art. Real physical pages are easier on the eyes than computer screens.

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.


Marv

To clarify here, the last bit of 'change' in theology, you could say, in the Orthodox Church (Eastern) was with the conclusion of the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 787 AD. Even then it is worth noting that Ecumenical Councils do not change, but clarify; at least in the EO point of view.

Thus, with a good number of centuries of solid doctrine what need is there for change? Even so, all has its root with Scripture.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

But doesn't anyone like to crack open a book anymore?

Absolutely! I'm big on books and love to read.


LDG

 

[Dale]

E.C. in post #4:
"I have not read the entire Bible (much less these books) to know what they're about, but from what I have heard from those that have, they may have some bits of prophesy that point to Jesus as being the Messiah which must have been deemed inconvenient in the eyes of the Jews."



I don't know of any prophecy in the Aypochryha.

*

*

 

[E.C.]

I don't know of any prophecy in the Aypochryha.

*

*

Nor do I as I have not read the entire Bible.


If I can recall from when I learned this about three years ago, they may have been removed by the Jews because of some similar 'political inconvenience'.

Fact remains that the Church used the LXX which had the Deutero-canon as a part of it and that the Jews sometime after Pentecost removed said canon and that centuries later the Protestants used the new canon made by the Jews and not the Church.