Your view of the "apocrypha"

[BBAS 64]

I think you are missing my point. Some versions of history say Martin Luther rejected Apocryphal books and the aforementioned New Testament books, and some say that is not true. I have no way of validating that history, but that was never my point anyway.

My point was that Martin Luther was a man. St. Jerome was a man. Eusebius, Athanasius, Arius, and a bunch of other early Christian leaders were men. Whether one of them or a group of them made a decision, it could be right or wrong.

Even the apostles made mistakes and had disagreements before and after Jesus resurrection. Early churches made mistakes as well. That is in the parts of the Bible that are universally accepted. Revelation contains descriptions of seven churches and their strengths and weaknesses, and indicates that certain sects were already diverging from the truth even at that time.

Who accredited or discredited a particular book is not important to me. The reasons it was accredited or discredited is important, since that is the only thing I can use to truly validate an opinion. The Maccabees praying for their fallen dead is no more evil than a little girl praying for her dead grandmother. It might not make a difference to the fate of the dead, but it might help the disposition of the one praying. And even if it is wrong to do so, the fact that it records that they did it is still a historical record.

From what I've seen in the Apocryphal books, they don't change how a person should live their life, worship God, or treat others. They are books about history or faith. And your church probably has a bunch of books that they have published that are recommended reading that are not inspired either, but are meant to help the reader's faith or understanding.

Good Day, SuperCow

Fair enough Thanks!

In Him,

Bill

 

[MarshallBryant]

Just a quick point of view.

Apocrypha to me is like the mythology that popped up around George Washington about Never Telling a Lie and throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac. They gave entertaining stories about real people for the purpose of encouraging desired behaviors and virtues.

But they were never intended to be anything more than stories. They were not even history, much less inspired works of GOD.

 

[MarshallBryant]

Just a quick point of view.

Apocrypha to me is like the mythology that popped up around George Washington about Never Telling a Lie and throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac. They gave entertaining stories about real people for the purpose of encouraging desired behaviors and virtues.

But they were never intended to be anything more than stories. They were not even history, much less inspired works of GOD.

I was not thinking about Maccabees as being apocryphal books. I was thinking more about those which all agree are outside Canon of the major denominations. Rightly or wrongly, I categorize the disputed Apocrypha/Canon as a separate category broadly called the Catholic extra books.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Good Day,

I say the historical church's view represented here in Jerome's writings is one that I can affirm.

What say you?

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

In Him,

Bill

It is interesting that Jesus never quoted anything out of the Apocrypha, although He quoted from many places in the Old Testament.

 

[BBAS 64]

It is interesting that Jesus never quoted anything out of the Apocrypha, although He quoted from many places in the Old Testament.

Good Day,

I am sure there are many historical books around at that time that Jesus did not quote from.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Good Day,

I am sure there are many historical books around at that time that Jesus did not quote from.

In Him,

Bill

True. But at Emmaeus, He went right through all the books of the Old Testament canon (the Torah) and pointed out all the Scriptural references to Himself. The difference with the Torah is that it is all about Jesus, while the other historical books aren't.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It is interesting that Jesus never quoted anything out of the Apocrypha, although He quoted from many places in the Old Testament.

That's incorrect. Christ quoted or incorporated quite a number of passages from the apocrypha, which means He knew about and was familiar with them.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

PS - It's also obvious Peter, James, Paul and the writers of Hebrews and Revelation were familiar with the Apocrypha.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's incorrect. Christ quoted or incorporated quite a number of passages from the apocrypha, which means He knew about and was familiar with them.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

Interesting.

 

[SuperCow]

That's incorrect. Christ quoted or incorporated quite a number of passages from the apocrypha, which means He knew about and was familiar with them.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

PS - It's also obvious Peter, James, Paul and the writers of Hebrews and Revelation were familiar with the Apocrypha.

And on the flip side, there are no examples of the New Testament writers quoting from any of the following Old Testament books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.

 

[SuperCow]

That's incorrect. Christ quoted or incorporated quite a number of passages from the apocrypha, which means He knew about and was familiar with them.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

PS - It's also obvious Peter, James, Paul and the writers of Hebrews and Revelation were familiar with the Apocrypha.

I think Oscarr was referring to direct quotes, as there are many in the New Testament from the standard Old Testament. I tend to agree that the Apocrypha are more important than most Protestant denominations agree, and that including them in the canon does not dilute the base theology of the rest of the Bible. However, these lists (as the link is one of) tend to misrepresent the facts of the scriptures they reference.

I started going through the link one reference at a time, and after realizing that this post would be way too long, I stopped after the first 20 or so, since the point was made from that. My opinion is that most of these references are not actually references at all. There are a few that are legitimate, but I wish these sites would stick to the legitimate links instead of muddying the water with the bogus references. It would I think strengthen their argument.

Wisdom 11:7 / Matthew 2:16
Wisdom refers to the killing of infants by Egypt, not Herod.

Sirach 29:11 / Matthew 6:19,20 and Tobit 4:15 / Matthew 7:12
The fact that these comparisons have similar doctrines does not imply that they couldn't have originated independently. I could similarly suggest that the Hammurabi code of justice from the first dynasty of Babylon is inspired, because the law of Moses appears to borrow from many elements of it.

Sirach 27:6 / Matthew 7:16-20
This is close enough that it is conceivable that Sirach's words influenced the choice of metaphors, though it is not a direct quote.

Judith 11:19 / Matthew 9:36
Identical metaphor, but only a single sentence which would seem like a common comparison considering how common shepherds were at that time.

Tobit 7:18 / Matthew 11:25
The online versions that I see (NRSVCE) and the (LXX) only have 16 verses in Tobit 7, so maybe there is a typo here.

Matthew 12:42
The queen is visiting Solomon the king for his wisdom, not reading "Wisdom of Solomon" the book, which might not have even been written yet.

Wisdom 16:13 / Matthew 16:18
A serious stretch to connect these two.

Tobit 3:8 & 7:11 / Matthew 22:24 & Mark 12:10 & Luke 20:29
This one is very interesting. I think this proves that the book of Tobit existed at the time of Jesus. Although it is the Sadducees that are quoting it, not Jesus who they are trying to trick. I would suggest from this; however, that Jesus probably was aware of the book at the very least.

1 Maccabees 1:54 & 2 Maccabees 8:17 / Matthew 24:15
These are clearly the same events, though Jesus is actually quoting from Daniel 11:31, not the Maccabees. That being said, a significant portion of Jewish history is missing without the Maccabees in the Bible. Daniel prophecies about it, Jesus references it, and history only knows the details from the Apocryphal books. (Chanukah, the holiday originating from this period is also celebrated in John 10:22)

1 Maccabees 2:28 / Matthew 24:16
Jesus is definitely alluding to a period that his followers would recognize, and when people had to do the same thing. Oppression by the Greeks cause a desecration of the 2nd temple, and later the Romans besieged Jerusalem and destroyed the temple completely. A lot of different ideas surround the interpretation of Matthew here, so it might affect your view of the parallel nature of the past, the current generation (relative to Jesus) and a possible futurist interpretation.

Wisdom 2:18 / Matthew 27:43
I think this reference cannot be considered a quote; however, it is profound if you take Wisdom chapter 2 in its entirety. It reads like a prophecy of Jesus, and Jesus enemies in Matthew 27:43,44 are fulfilling the prophecy.

Sirach 40:15 / Mark 4:5,16,17
Not buying into this connection at all.

Judith 16:17 / Mark 9:48
Same result. Not the same target. Don't think I could call this a reference.

Judith 13:18 / Luke 1:42
No, the two have nothing to do with each other besides the same compliment.

Sirach 10:14 / Luke 1:52
Very weak similarity to a similar doctrine.

Tobit 11:9 / Luke 2:29
No, again nothing to do with each other here.

Baruch 4:37 / Luke 13:29
Baruch is referring to returning Jews from Babylon. Luke is referring to people in the future coming to Jerusalem to worship. No real connection. (Will not get sidetracked into Zionist interpretations in this thread though.)

One final comment is that some Old Testament->New Testament references that people quote are weak arguments too, but in this case the majority falls on the legitimate reference side.