The Apocrypha

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm waiting on my copy of the ESV with expanded Apocrypha to come. As soon as I get and read it, I'll post some thoughts.

Hullo! Will be very interested in your thoughts

Gospel of Thomas says that in order for a woman to be saved she must become a man; it completely changes Christ's motivation in going after the one lost from the 100 in His flock; other gnostics are similar drivel. They are later writtings, rejected from the start, never accepted, clearly not Scripture, and of no benefit to anyone beyond being able to debate/discuss with agnostics/atheists.

Ah, ok, if they run counter to Scripture, then I understand their not being included. Thank you for the explanation. Have never read any of the gnostic gospels... clearly haven't missed much!

Can I ask, what do you know about the Dead Sea Scrolls, please?

The Deuterocanonical books (Catholic apocrypha if you will) are also clearly not Scripture, but they are very useful for our instructions and reading, and I think that the vast majority of protestantism in completely ignoring them miss something of our spiritual heritage.

How so? I literally don't know the first thing about any of this... was only even peripherally aware of them, after hearing of Tobit and the Macabees every now and then. But I don't know if they add to scriptures, or detract, or complement, and some Christians having it as standard fare, and others having nothing to do with it at all places it in a grey area that I find very confusing indeed.

 

[AnneSally]

Nah, I think he's referencing those Gnostic Gospels..

I always thought that gospel of thomas was very gnostic....:?

 

[Rhamiel]

I always thought that gospel of thomas was very gnostic....:?

i think most people count it as a gnostic book

 

[StreetPreacher82]

I have to agree, most of the books left out of the NT were left out for very good reasons... i.e. The Acts of Paul where he witnesses to a lion who eventually refuses to eat him because the lion has been saved and baptized. Oh yeah... it's there... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html.

Some books are just best put aside as they cannot be canon.

 

[BereanTodd]

Can I ask, what do you know about the Dead Sea Scrolls, please?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have a variety of writtings. Some of them are the religious writtings of the Essene sect, and as such they give interesting into the period of Second Temple Judaism.

What is really great though are the copies of scripture. There are at least partial copies of every OT book with the exception of Esther, dating to one to two centuries prior to the life of Christ. Now, there are differences in the Septuigant and the Masoretic in places, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are somewhere in the middle.

But there are many great confidences and wonderful things that we get from them. For instance take Isaiah 53, probably the greatest prophecy of Christ, and one of my favorite chapters of Scripture. For centuries there were those who basically asserted that this had to be an addition written by CHristians after the life of Christ - it was just too clear of a prophecy.

They could make this assertion because the oldest copy of the OT that we had dated from the 10th century AD. Now we have a complete copy of Isaiah from centuries before the life of Christ, with Isaiah 53 there. When we compare the text of the DSS Isaiah 53 to our version we find something like only 7 or 12 (I am not 100% positive on the exact number off of my head) letters of difference in our version and the DSS version. Not only that but all but 3 of those letters of difference are matters of either spelling or grammar. 3 letters compose one word, the only word in the entire chapter over which there is any debate (the word translated 'light'). That is awesome transmission AND prophecy, confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

How so? I literally don't know the first thing about any of this... was only even peripherally aware of them, after hearing of Tobit and the Macabees every now and then. But I don't know if they add to scriptures, or detract, or complement, and some Christians having it as standard fare, and others having nothing to do with it at all places it in a grey area that I find very confusing indeed.

Well they (the deuterocanon) are very instructive of both history and background of what was happening in what we call the intertestimental period - the period between the OT and NT. The Jews have never considered these books to be scripture on par with the OT, but they do place high value on them and get, for instance, the Feast of Hannukah from them. We miss a great part of the roots of our faith by missing out on these books - at the same time though we would do damage to our theology and understanding were we to place these books on par with Scripture.

 

[Cris413]

You might find this interesting GM...I came across this teaching when I was researching the Da Vinci Code...

...it referrences a lot of what your asking about...it's about an hour long...I found it very informative and saved it to my favorites.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6957514137139557953

 

[ReformedChapin]

Never heard the gnostic writings being referred to as Apocrypha

 

[Rhamiel]

Apocrapha means not in the Cannon, why would I call the books in the OT Apocypha?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Apocrapha means not in the Cannon, why would I call the books in the OT Apocypha?

Not the books in the OT the addition of books by the RCC

 

[Rhamiel]

Not the books in the OT the addition of books by the RCC

those books were taken out after the Reformation, before that they were treated like anyother book of the OT, they were rejection by the Jews only after Christian faith was started, lacking authority at that point

 

[ReformedChapin]

those books were taken out after the Reformation, before that they were treated like anyother book of the OT, they were rejection by the Jews only after Christian faith was started, lacking authority at that point

uh no, those books were added after the reformation to give the authority more to the RCC

the OT cannon in the protestant bible has been used by jews for years

 

[Rhamiel]

well the Jews reject the NT, so I do not really trust them when it comes to what books to keep and what books to pitch

 

[ReformedChapin]

well the Jews reject the NT, so I do not really trust them when it comes to what books to keep and what books to pitch

the early church accepted the same cannon we have now


do you really want to get in this debate right now? it's been going on for over 500 years since the reformation

 

[LivingLifeHisWay]

The Apocrypha contradicts not only the Bible but itself. There are historical, geographical and chronological errors in it. None of the authors claim inspiration or divine authority.

 

[Secundulus]

the early church accepted the same cannon we have now


do you really want to get in this debate right now? it's been going on for over 500 years since the reformation

The Apostles used the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish Canon deletes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish canon was not established until around 100AD.

The scriptures in use when Jesus lived includes the Apocrypha.

 

[MrJim]

The Apostles used the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish Canon deletes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish canon was not established until around 100AD.

The scriptures in use when Jesus lived includes the Apocrypha.

I hear Septuagint I always remember this quote:

"Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy a Septuagint" Ferdinand Hitzig

 

[Rhamiel]

The Apocrypha contradicts not only the Bible but itself. There are historical, geographical and chronological errors in it. None of the authors claim inspiration or divine authority.

Did the writer of Job claim inspiration or divine authority? That could be said about many books of the OT
How do the deuterocanonical books contradict the rest of the Bible?

 

[arunma]

well the Jews reject the NT, so I do not really trust them when it comes to what books to keep and what books to pitch

I agree that it would be a gross error to trust the Jews (or any non-Christians, for that matter) on matters of doctrine or faith, since they reject Jesus Christ. But may I ask: why, then, does the Catholic Church give so much credence to Jewish doctrine, even going so far in the Catechism as to suggest that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus?

Sorry if I'm going off topic. But I often am perplexed when Catholics dismiss Jewish opinions on theology, when the Catholic Church lends such opinions so much credibility.

 

[synger]

uh no, those books were added after the reformation to give the authority more to the RCC

the OT cannon in the protestant bible has been used by jews for years

I think you may be confused (or i have misunderstood your statement). The deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Macccabees) were included in some of the earliest Bibles: the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. During the Reformation, they were separated from the main books into their own section, which we see in all of the printed Bibles of the Reformation (the Luther Bible, the King James, even the Geneva Bible that the Puritans used).

What started the confusion is that the deuterocanonical books were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), but not in the Hebrew version. So they were included in the Bibles used by the Greek-speaking church (and later Latin-speaking, through Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Septuagint). However, they were never really focused on very much.

Luther was the first to separate them into their own section, with the header "Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, but nevertheless are useful and good to read." In fact, most LUtheran lectionaries (daily/weekly Scripture readings) included readings from the Apocrypha as late as 30 years ago.

It wasn't until the 1880's, and the publication of the Revised Standard Version, that the Apocrypha began to be removed from English Bibles.

As to doctrines, there are only two RC doctrines that I can think of that come from the Apocrypha -- purgatory, and prayer to saints. The idea of purgatory is a late one, theologically speaking, and didn't really develop until the 12th century or so.

 

[MrJim]

I think you may be confused (or i have misunderstood your statement). The deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Macccabees) were included in some of the earliest Bibles: the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. During the Reformation, they were separated from the main books into their own section, which we see in all of the printed Bibles of the Reformation (the Luther Bible, the King James, even the Geneva Bible that the Puritans used).

What started the confusion is that the deuterocanonical books were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), but not in the Hebrew version. So they were included in the Bibles used by the Greek-speaking church (and later Latin-speaking, through Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Septuagint). However, they were never really focused on very much.

Luther was the first to separate them into their own section, with the header "Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, but nevertheless are useful and good to read." In fact, most LUtheran lectionaries (daily/weekly Scripture readings) included readings from the Apocrypha as late as 30 years ago.

It wasn't until the 1880's, and the publication of the Revised Standard Version, that the Apocrypha began to be removed from English Bibles.

As to doctrines, there are only two RC doctrines that I can think of that come from the Apocrypha -- purgatory, and prayer to saints. The idea of purgatory is a late one, theologically speaking, and didn't really develop until the 12th century or so.

Luther~he sorta wanted James out too, didn't he