Apocrypha

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree. Someone needs to write him a letter...
Of course, he is Catholic, so he says he believes the Apocrypha.

 

They were never considered as canon.

 

I would say they are Gnostic.

 

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.

 

On what basis?

 

The Catholic Church considers the apocrypha fully canonical.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Who really cares? I have the Bible.

 

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

 

Good day, StefanM

Post Trent, this would be correct for The RCC.

In Him,

Bill