Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by The Scribe, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, is the Apocrypha considered valid books of the Bible that have been removed?

    If they are why have they been removed?

    The first KJV contained the Apocrypha.

    Apocrypha wikipedia

    Apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon.
     
  2. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. cowboymatt

    cowboymatt
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Apocrypha is still in use in many Christian churches. Catholics and Orthodox Christians assign to it a different sort of authority than they do the other books of the Old and New Testaments...but they still see some value in it.

    I have to read it all the time in my studies and find it to be very interesting. If you like books like Esther, Daniel, and Revelation, you will love the Old Testament Apocrypha.
     
  4. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't think the OT Apocrypha was included in the OT kept by Judaism. Which is one of the reasons that makes the most sense to me as to why it shouldn't be in our OT now....when the NT refers to the Scriptures, those Scriptures didn't include it. I don't think Jesus ever quoted it, did He?

    I could be wrong...but those are a couple of reasons why I've always thought we didn't have the OT apocrypha.

    As for the NT...the Maccabbees are good books. They need to be made into a Mel Gibson movie. He would be a perfect Mattathias.
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    There really isn't a distinction like OT/NT apocrypha.

    The apocrypha are usually bunched with the OT because they pre-date the NT writings. They are, however, all written in Greek.

    The pseudepigrapha are later writings in the Christian era, but I know of no orthodox Christian church that accepts them.
     
  6. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. Someone needs to write him a letter...
    Of course, he is Catholic, so he says he believes the Apocrypha.
     
  7. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    They were never considered as canon.
     
  8. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, are these books considered Agnostic or Gnostic scriptures?
     
  9. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say they are Gnostic.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    No. In the churches that use them, they consider them as useful but not on the level of scripture.

    As the Anglicans said in 1801 in their "Articles of Religion"...

    Under Article VI

    "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:"

    It then lists the books known as the apocrypha.
     
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    On what basis?
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    The Catholic Church considers the apocrypha fully canonical.
     
  13. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, that's what I was thinking. ;)

    The Catholic church says a lot of unbiblical things.

    Like priest are not to marry. Scripture says otherwise.

    1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)
    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
     
  14. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    I never said that Catholic church was right, but you just blindly accept the assertion that the apocrypha are gnostic?

    They don't have to be gnostic to be flawed.
     
  15. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't blindly accepted that they are Gnostic in origin.

    I thought they were because they were not included in the canon.
     
  16. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    The question of the apocrypha came to a head during the Reformation. The Jews never accepted them as canonical, but the Catholic Church did accept them.

    The question for the reformers was this: Do we follow the Jews, who deny Christ completely, or do we follow the Catholic Church, which is corrupt?

    As far as the alleged gnosticism goes, the apocrypha already existed before the gnostic movements arose.
     
  17. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who really cares? I have the Bible.
     
  18. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should care if they were actual books that had been removed. ;)
     
  19. bbas 64

    bbas 64
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Day, The Scribe


    That is a really good question, that I have never got an answer for.

    What I am lead to belive happened was when the congrees of the USA, received a letter copy write from the crown copy write of England to reproduce the KJ text for a version to be subsided by the congress they disappeared.

    They are good reading and would suggest they be read, as I would suggest Spurgeon or Boyce or Calvin to be read.

    I agree with the church of Jerome's day as to their usefullness

    " 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."

    Jerome
    Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

    As to being Gnostic hardly, I have a 611 version I will have to see if the translator address the issue I doubt it. They would have taken the same historical approach to these texts as Jerome IMHO.

    In Him,

    Bill
     
  20. bbas 64

    bbas 64
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good day, StefanM

    Post Trent, this would be correct for The RCC.

    In Him,

    Bill
     

Share This Page

Loading...