What are your ideas on the Apocrypha?

Question

Are these books studies in seminaries for their historical value?

Once again, is the Apocrypha of any historical value to seminarians, even in the protestant churches? Is the Apolcrypha a link between the old and new testaments?

By the way, I am not one of those rating your answers.

Answer 1

Apocrypha, I have to ask which Apocrypha? Pastor Billy says: you are receiving many inconsistent answers and partial answers.

1. The gnostic gospels are technically apocrypha and this does not form any part of the Protestant, Catholic, Judaic or Eastern Orthodox scripture.

2. Do all Jews reject the Catholic Christian Old Testament scriptures as apocrypha containing? No they do not do a search on the canon used by African Jews, Ethophian Jews and be surprised.
Anyone who answers this question and told you the Protestant OT canon is the same as Jewish canon and therefore contains greater authenticity don't really know what they are talking about and haven't studied the development of scripture at all.

Once you learn the books of ancient Jews in diaspora and the African Jews today you begin to look at what is the canon of scripture alittle more enlightened once it was closed.

3. What defines books as apocrypha in the first place and by whose authority do we decide what is rightly defined as apocrypha? For Christians is it a Jewish authority or a Christian authority? For Jews is it a Christian authority or Jewish authority? There is much confusion about this.

4. I'll assume you are talking primarily about the difference of books between Catholic and Protestant Christians and no other.

Yes these books should be studied in seminary as they do have much historical value but more importantly much Christian understanding that Pharisaios Judaism was attempting to eliminate as early Christianity was beginning to overwhelm second century Judaism in Palestine.

Lastly if you are a Christian during the time Christ and his first apostles walking the earth there was no closed canon of scripture and although I am sure there was dispute over certain writings there was however nowhere near as much argument as what we have today.

EDIT 1: with regards to quotations by Jesus or the apostles from bibles you would say contain apocrypha and what we do know,

a) we do know they quoted OT scripture some 350 times in the NT
b) we do know that out of those 350 times 300 times they were made from the Septuagint which was the Greek translation of hebrew scriptures written by hebrew scribes some 250 year before the coming of Christ.
c) and we do know the Septuagint contained all the books that Protestants are at odds with when taking with other Christians like Catholics.
d) very possibly the Septuagint canon is also why Ethophian Jews today also accept these books.

I suggest you do an independant studied on this ancient bible the Septuagint written by the Jews before you jump to any wrong conclusions/answers given you.

EDIT 2: just to tweek your interest further you'll find Dead Sea scroll fragments which contain what Protestants entitle "apocrypha" interesting don't you think that in Palestine the same place where the Jewish council of Jamina ~100ad decided to outlaw Christian practice Jews were using what you now call apocrypha as inspired scripture and this all happening decades after Christianity had separated itself from Judaism, no longer a sect but the religion of God's new convenant people.

Answer 2

The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable OrigIn and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Aprocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Aprocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Aprocrypha (especially those relating to Tobit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 3

First, disregard everything 'Lion of Judah' said. He has a nack for revisionist history.

These are the historical facts.

Apocrypha, as used today, describes nonscriptural texts. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches that use them call them dueterocannonical (second canon) - canon being the approved list. In the third and forth centuries, when the canon of scripture was being worked out by the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church), these writings were included precisely because they were quoted in the New Testiment and were part of the scriptures used by Jesus and the apostles (i.e. the Septuigant). The Septuigant was the predominantly accepted version of the Jewish scriptures in the first century. After the Christians began to use it as their own scriptures, the Jews had a council at Jamnia to revise their canon. The canon of scripture that they settled on is what Protestants use as their Old Testiment.

The Jews after Jesus did not have the authority to determine the canon of scripture, because Jesus gave their authority to the apostles and their successors. The early bishops (successors of the apostles) decided what the canon of scripture was, and it included the deuterocanonicles - those are the facts - no matter how anyone wants to spin them.

'Lion of Judah' makes a desperate attempt to appeal to the Church Fathers in support of his argument. This is a huge mistake. He points out how Jerome did not think the deuterocanonicals belonged in the bible. Yet, in submittion to the Gog-given authority of the Catholic Church, he included them in his Latin translation, which is still the official Bible of the Catholic Church. No other church can claim a Bible canon of this antiquity.

Justin Martyr writes of the Septuigant in the second century:
When Ptolemy, king of Egypt, was founding a library, and set out to gather the writings of all mankind, he learned about these prophecies and sent to Herod, then king of the Jews, asking him to send him the prophetic books. King Herod sent them, written in the aforementioned Hebrew language. Since their contents were not intelligible to the Egyptians, he again sent and asked him to send men who could translate them into Greek. This was done, and the books remain in the hands of the Egyptians down to the present, the Jews everywhere have them too. But though they read them, they do not understand what they say, but consider us their enemies and opponents...

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage quotes the Septuagint in the third century:
But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, “Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works” [Rev. 2:5], which is certainly said to him who has evidently fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds, because it is written, “Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9].

And the Angelic Doctor, Augustine, quotes the Septuagint in the fifth century:
In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead (cf. 2 Mac. 12:42-46). Howbeit even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the Commendation of the dead hath also its place.

Answer 4

The Apocrypha: is it scripture?

The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.
Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.


Not quoted in the New Testament



First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.

"then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2).
Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the apocrypha.


Jesus' references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah



Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51).

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced able and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the apocryphal and was not including it in his reference.



Jesus' references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms


Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the law, the prophets, and the writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," (Luke 24:44).
So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid in their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the apocryphal for the above mentioned reasons.




Church Fathers


Did the Church fathers recognized the apocrypha is being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the first century never mentioned the apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the apocryphal. They didn't.

Answer 5

After the completion of the translation of the Tanakh into Greek, other writings containing the history of the Jews from the time of Malachi ( c. 450 BC )to the birth of Jesus were translated as well. Although these books were held to very important by Jews, they were not considered scriptural.

Their content not only contained some historicl and factual errors, but also taught things that did not cohere with Scripture. They were, however, added to many versions of the Septuagint, creating what is sometimes refered to as the "Septuagint plus".

When Jerome translated the Old Testament into Latin in the fourth century, he included these books, designating them as apocryphal. Like the Jews, he considered them as having some value but that they were not fit for the formulation of doctrine.

With the caveat of their non-canonical status, the books continued to be included in Bibles until shortly after the Reformation. After 1825 or so the apocryphal books were largely dropped from inclusion in the Bible except inversions authorized by Roman Catholic Church of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

During the Reformation one of the complaints against Rome was that some of its teachings had no basis in Scripture. Rome responded in 1546 at the Council of Trent by declaring the apocryphal books to be scriptural, thus expanding its definition of the canon. The reason these books were incorporated is because it is from these books that Roman Catholic doctrines such as prayers for the dead, purgatory, and justification by faith plus works are derived.

Answer 6

I think they're uninspired, so not equal to Scripture. However, they are somewhat useful as a source of historic information. For example, the apocryphal book "The Martyrdom of Isaiah" is quite interesting; it certainly explains the reference made in Hebrews 11:37.

Peace.

Answer 7

Ive read the Apocrypha,.... I dont find anything wrong with them personally... they dont teach any different message than the Bible with them removed. They're nothing like the "lost gospels" that make claims that completely differ from majority text.

Answer 8

I think it's just as valid as the rest of the Bible.

Answer 9

I don't have anything to add to above answers.
Good question, thanks for the info.