The Apocrypha

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N

nathan3

Guest
#1
The Complete Septuagint Version : Relatively few Christians today have heard of the books of the Apocrypha and fewer still are familiar with its contents. Yet, the majority of the Greek manuscripts including the Septuagint Old Testament copies contain the Apocrypha. The Books of the Apocrypha were not included in the final, canonical versions of the Hebrew Bible and for this reason they were called "Apocrypha" the hidden books .

However, the fact remains that most Bible translations up through and including the 1611 King James Version contained all of these now little read books. All English language translations since their beginning in 1382 contained them. Not until the 1800's did the British Bible Society and later the American Bible Society remove them completely .
And yet there is so much contained in the Apocrypha of historical value which compliments other Books of the Bible. For example, the Apocrypha books contain Bible history occurring between the time of the Old Testament and New Testament . To the Bible scholar these books cannot simply be dismissed and are deserving of serious study. Of special interest to students of prophecy is the book of II Esdras which is thought by some scholars to be the companion book to the Old testament book of Ezra.


There are several existent English language translations, but the outstanding translation by Edgar J. Goodspeed is recommended above all others. It is well known for its translation faithfulness from the original Greek text into modern, easy to read English. Goodspeed's Preface to the Apocrypha contains valuable historical information as to the history of the Apocrypha, its translations and use .

[size=+1] The SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS [/size]

from II Esdras 7: 3-12

" Suppose a sea lies in a broad expanse , so that it is wide

4 and vast, but the entrance to it is located in a narrow space,

5 so that it is like a river; if anyone is determined to reach the
sea, to see it or master it, how can he reach the broad water

6 unless he passes through the narrows ? Another illustra-
-tion: Suppose a city is built and located on level ground,

7 and is full of all good things, but the approach to it is narrow
and precipitous so that there is fire on the right hand and

8 deep water on the left, and there is only one path lying be-
-tween them, that is, between the fire and the water, so that

9 the path can support the steps of only one man. Now if that
city is given to a man as an inheritance, if the heir does not
pass through the danger that lies before it, how can he re-
-ceive his inheritance?"

10 And I said
"True, sir."
And he said to me,

11 Israel's destiny is like that. For I made the world for
their sakes, and when Adam transgressed my statutes, what

12 has now happened was decreed; and the ways of entering
this world were made narrow, grievous, and toilsome, and
few and evil, full of dangers and burdened with great hard-..................................... etc.
 
Last edited:
W

wdeaton65

Guest
#2
This thread is going to be great. Most all dont even know it was in the KJ 1611 including 90% of the people calling them self a pastor Yeah this should be GREAT reading LOL. Let us not forget francis bacon had this for a year 1610-1611 cant wait for the commentary let the debate begin and lets be nice right LOL
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#3
yes its in the King James, so it must be 100% correct and something we all must read and study and beleive, after all if it was in the King James, it must be inspired from God etc... Well thats if you beleive the "You will go to hell if you read any other Bible Than King James" brigade.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#4
yes its in the King James, so it must be 100% correct and something we all must read and study and beleive, after all if it was in the King James, it must be inspired from God etc... Well thats if you beleive the "You will go to hell if you read any other Bible Than King James" brigade.

ahhh what ? This thread is'nt about the King James. it just mentions how the Apocrypha was in the " Original 1611" version of the King James.... I even wrote how the majority of the Greek manuscripts including the Septuagint Old Testament copies contain the Apocrypha. That was the key thing to note.... -_- . It's in the manuscripts. The manuscripts is over the King James, its where all the Bibles come from...

You would be more correct if you said , its in the Septuagint, so it must be 100% correct. and something we must all read. Then you'd have a more truthful statement .
 
Last edited:
W

wdeaton65

Guest
#5
This thread is going to be great. Most all dont even know it was in the KJ 1611 including 90% of the people calling them self a pastor Yeah this should be GREAT reading LOL. Let us not forget francis bacon had this for a year 1610-1611 cant wait for the commentary let the debate begin and lets be nice right LOL
Thats funny. I am surprised you are the only reply maybe they are checking out francis bacon real sweet heart of a guy kabalast mason you know a satanic scum bag and all. This is why, "Yeshua said let no man deceive you". We have got to check all things and line them up if it doesnt fit the O/T through it out GOD will not mind. Translations are just that translations no one is going to be able to blame king james francis rupert murdoch or who ever when we bow before the LORD. Blessings

I thought this would have been a much more lively thread.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
#6
Although they offer some helpful history, a main strike against the intertestimal Apocrypha was that Jesus never quoted from tthem.
I am curious how it is that the early Church did not receive them as Canon but Rome did; how came that difference?
 
W

wdeaton65

Guest
#7
Thats funny. I am surprised you are the only reply maybe they are checking out francis bacon real sweet heart of a guy kabalast mason you know a satanic scum bag and all. This is why, "Yeshua said let no man deceive you". We have got to check all things and line them up if it doesnt fit the O/T through it out GOD will not mind. Translations are just that translations no one is going to be able to blame king james francis rupert murdoch or who ever when we bow before the LORD. Blessings

I thought this would have been a much more lively thread.

OOOOPPPPS wrong quote sorry I meant AGRICOLA post
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#8
basic summary of the apocrypha...

tobit...a work of fiction...somewhat occultic...references an earlier fictional 'palace drama' called 'the story of ahiqar'...
judith...pure fiction...no attempt at historical accuracy...
additions to esther...exactly what it sounds like...later additions to make esther more 'religious'...
wisdom of solomon...hellenized jewish wisdom literature having nothing to do with solomon...
sirach...the book itself openly indicates that it is not inspired scripture...
baruch...an ancient work of 'cut and paste'...mostly an assemblage of plagiarized scriptures...
letter of jeremiah...a later addition to baruch...
prayer of azariah and song of the three jews...addition to daniel...originally an independent work included in an appendix to psalms with no relation to the book of daniel...
susanna...obvious later addition to daniel...resolution of the story is dependent on a greek pun whereas daniel was in hebrew and aramaic...discrepancy noticed from ancient times...
bel and the dragon...addition to daniel...religious palace drama plus a short fairy tale...
first maccabees...our best source of information on the maccabean revolt...
second maccabees...less reliable account of mostly the same events...condensed from a larger multivolume work

first esdras...mainly a repetition of chronicles and ezra and nehemiah...
prayer of manasseh...prayer fabricated to 'fill in the blank' in chronicles where manasseh's prayer is not given...
psalm 151...merging of two older non davidic poems...
third maccabees...more fiction in the spirit of judith and tobit...not actually about the maccabees...
fourth maccabees...worldly philosophy with examples from the story of the maccabean revolt...

second esdras...a series of late fabrications spliced together...
 
P

PeteWaldo

Guest
#9
Although they offer some helpful history, a main strike against the intertestimal Apocrypha was that Jesus never quoted from tthem.
I am curious how it is that the early Church did not receive them as Canon but Rome did; how came that difference?
Jews didn't consider the Apocrypha inspired either. It's my understanding the Roman Church added the apocrypha to their bible in a counter-reformation effort.

"Start with a pinch of Homer, add two cups of scriptural interpretation, slowly pour in some secret ingredients and blend with copious amounts of wild imagination. Chop into 11 parts (more depending on your appetite), cook on low heat, and let simmer for 1500 years. Serve along with Scripture."
Apocrypha

That it may have been included in publication of some bibles, does not mean that Christians considered these pre-Christian era books to be inspired, any more than Jews did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

nathan3

Guest
#10
basic summary of the apocrypha...

tobit...a work of fiction...somewhat occultic...references an earlier fictional 'palace drama' called 'the story of ahiqar'...
judith...pure fiction...no attempt at historical accuracy...
additions to esther...exactly what it sounds like...later additions to make esther more 'religious'...
wisdom of solomon...hellenized jewish wisdom literature having nothing to do with solomon...
sirach...the book itself openly indicates that it is not inspired scripture...
baruch...an ancient work of 'cut and paste'...mostly an assemblage of plagiarized scriptures...
letter of jeremiah...a later addition to baruch...
prayer of azariah and song of the three jews...addition to daniel...originally an independent work included in an appendix to psalms with no relation to the book of daniel...
susanna...obvious later addition to daniel...resolution of the story is dependent on a greek pun whereas daniel was in hebrew and aramaic...discrepancy noticed from ancient times...
bel and the dragon...addition to daniel...religious palace drama plus a short fairy tale...
first maccabees...our best source of information on the maccabean revolt...
second maccabees...less reliable account of mostly the same events...condensed from a larger multivolume work

first esdras...mainly a repetition of chronicles and ezra and nehemiah...
prayer of manasseh...prayer fabricated to 'fill in the blank' in chronicles where manasseh's prayer is not given...
psalm 151...merging of two older non davidic poems...
third maccabees...more fiction in the spirit of judith and tobit...not actually about the maccabees...
fourth maccabees...worldly philosophy with examples from the story of the maccabean revolt...

second esdras...a series of late fabrications spliced together...

your kidding right ? grief . Suit yourself . Those books are in the manuscripts. You think even books in the Bible we have, are fairy tails. Your views in my opinion are extreme.
 
P

PeteWaldo

Guest
#11
your kidding right ? grief . Suit yourself . Those books are in the manuscripts. You think even books in the Bible we have, are fairy tails. Your views in my opinion are extreme.
Perhaps you suffer the bondage of the Roman Church. An "extreme" opinion would be to accept that the Apocrypha was inspired by God. The internal evidence in those pre-Christian era books should demonstrate to Christians, just as it does to Jews, that they were uninspired. Why not investigate the subject rather than knee-jerk react? You can start at this link:
Apocrypha
 
B

BishopSEH

Guest
#12
Ok this is already getting out of hand. Prior to the Council of Trent, many bibles did indeed have the Apocrypha. Until the Council of Trent however, they were not viewed as Scripture but merely good for edification. In short valuable for the lessons and the history but not inspired by God. Not even Jerome considered these book Scripture only that they had value and should be read and studied. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls contain them but that doesn't make them Scripture either.

The do however contain a lot of errors, mostly in the historicity of them. Unlike Dr. Luke, the books of the Apocrypha are difficult to align to dates and times sometimes to the degree of years. Also, some traditions of Christendom have used as few as one single line to create whole dogma's and doctrines. For this reason alone not one single bible that I have has them included. I elected to have them but as a stand alone text. In doing this, do to my reading speed and to the fact that I tend to get lost in books, even the bible, I did not want to begin reading one and allow it to worm its way in my Scripture memory.

Like the Early Church Fathers, I tend to see the value of them and also like them I agree that they simply are not Scripture. To treat them as such I would have to say is not merely foolish but dangerous. When you treat non-Scripture as Scripture then you in effect make God's truth irrelevant in your mind and heart to one degree or another.

I love reading the writing of the past popes, of Martin Luther, of John Calvin and Billy Graham and so on. Its interesting and each shares a perspective that has shaped the world they lived and preached in. But their writings are Scripture either and should not be treated as such. The same goes for the Apocrypha and books like the Catechism of the Roman Church. Again, valuable but not Scripture, not God breathed, not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#13
Ok this is already getting out of hand. Prior to the Council of Trent, many bibles did indeed have the Apocrypha. Until the Council of Trent however, they were not viewed as Scripture but merely good for edification. In short valuable for the lessons and the history but not inspired by God. Not even Jerome considered these book Scripture only that they had value and should be read and studied. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls contain them but that doesn't make them Scripture either.

The do however contain a lot of errors, mostly in the historicity of them. Unlike Dr. Luke, the books of the Apocrypha are difficult to align to dates and times sometimes to the degree of years. Also, some traditions of Christendom have used as few as one single line to create whole dogma's and doctrines. For this reason alone not one single bible that I have has them included. I elected to have them but as a stand alone text. In doing this, do to my reading speed and to the fact that I tend to get lost in books, even the bible, I did not want to begin reading one and allow it to worm its way in my Scripture memory.

Like the Early Church Fathers, I tend to see the value of them and also like them I agree that they simply are not Scripture. To treat them as such I would have to say is not merely foolish but dangerous. When you treat non-Scripture as Scripture then you in effect make God's truth irrelevant in your mind and heart to one degree or another.

I love reading the writing of the past popes, of Martin Luther, of John Calvin and Billy Graham and so on. Its interesting and each shares a perspective that has shaped the world they lived and preached in. But their writings are Scripture either and should not be treated as such. The same goes for the Apocrypha and books like the Catechism of the Roman Church. Again, valuable but not Scripture, not God breathed, not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH


how do you determine what is God inspired or not ? ?? ? Because, these scriptures are in the manuscripts. What is stopping some one from applying the same logic to scriptures we have already, that some would take as non scriptural. It was always in the scriptures until modern times, was it taken out.

Christians should give them a close look. because there are truths that can be learned from them. It very well may be that its same teachings are the teachings of Christ, is that people do not understand yet, nor can see the subtle truth in Christ teachings, and the connection to the teachings in the Apocrypha . They deserve a much closer look then they have been given .
 
Last edited:

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#14
Refering to my earlier post and comments from Nathan3 and others, I was just simply pointing out how when it comes to The Cult of the King James Only, the Apocrypha Throws a huge spanner in the works and is kind of a problem for them.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#15
Refering to my earlier post and comments from Nathan3 and others, I was just simply pointing out how when it comes to The Cult of the King James Only, the Apocrypha Throws a huge spanner in the works and is kind of a problem for them.
That statement dose not make any sense, grief. you cant use cult- and a Bible, even if you dont like the version, in the same sentence. Im done talking in this thread, it has fallen apart.
 
P

PeteWaldo

Guest
#16
Ok this is already getting out of hand. Prior to the Council of Trent, many bibles did indeed have the Apocrypha. Until the Council of Trent however, they were not viewed as Scripture but merely good for edification. In short valuable for the lessons and the history but not inspired by God. Not even Jerome considered these book Scripture only that they had value and should be read and studied. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls contain them but that doesn't make them Scripture either.

The do however contain a lot of errors, mostly in the historicity of them. Unlike Dr. Luke, the books of the Apocrypha are difficult to align to dates and times sometimes to the degree of years. Also, some traditions of Christendom have used as few as one single line to create whole dogma's and doctrines. For this reason alone not one single bible that I have has them included. I elected to have them but as a stand alone text. In doing this, do to my reading speed and to the fact that I tend to get lost in books, even the bible, I did not want to begin reading one and allow it to worm its way in my Scripture memory.

Like the Early Church Fathers, I tend to see the value of them and also like them I agree that they simply are not Scripture. To treat them as such I would have to say is not merely foolish but dangerous. When you treat non-Scripture as Scripture then you in effect make God's truth irrelevant in your mind and heart to one degree or another.

I love reading the writing of the past popes, of Martin Luther, of John Calvin and Billy Graham and so on. Its interesting and each shares a perspective that has shaped the world they lived and preached in. But their writings are Scripture either and should not be treated as such. The same goes for the Apocrypha and books like the Catechism of the Roman Church. Again, valuable but not Scripture, not God breathed, not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH
"Also, some traditions of Christendom have used as few as one single line to create whole dogma's and doctrines." There is certainly no shortage of that, and on that note, I have a question for you Bishop SEH. I notice in your profile you are married, so I presume you are not Roman Catholic. Now it is my understanding that declarations of the Pope and Vatican Council are considered to be more than a little important in Roman Catholicism. Perhaps even considered to be infallible by some Roman Catholics.

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Nostra Aetate (1965)
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
The Second Vatican Council
Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI
October 28, 1965
Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, together with the Fathers of the Sacred Council. For Everlasting Memory.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth (5), who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."

My question is how could those guys have all gotten that so wrong?

How is 1.5 billion people that follow THE false prophet Muhammad, that are required to DISBELIEVE the crucifixion of Christ, DENY the Son of God, and REJECT His shed blood AS ARTICLES OF FAITH in Muhammad alone, who prostrate themselves to the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca five times a day, while praying in the "vain repetitions of the heathen", in the names of the Arabian pagan deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad, "submitting wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees" (the God of the Bible's decrees).
Much less that this same 1/4 of mankind is obligated to travel to that black stone idol, march around it 7 times, and engage in several other Quraish pagan rituals, including running back and forth between two hills seven times as the Arabian jinn-devil worshipers did - ashaving anything whatsoever to do with the "inscrutable decrees" of the God of the Jews and Christians?
Let alone that the same 1.5 billion people are commanded to conquer all kingdoms and subjugate all people, to DISBELIEVING the crucifixion of Christ, DENYING the Son of God, and REJECT His shed blood.

Shouldn't those guys be expected to investigate things before they issue decrees?
How could they get so wrong, when Islam has been the enemy of God's people, for 1400 years?
Isn't encouraging 1/4 of mankind to continue to follow the false prophet Muhammad the EXACT OPPOSITE of what these guys should be doing? Of what we are called to do as Christians?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#17
Ok this is already getting out of hand. Prior to the Council of Trent, many bibles did indeed have the Apocrypha. Until the Council of Trent however, they were not viewed as Scripture but merely good for edification. In short valuable for the lessons and the history but not inspired by God. Not even Jerome considered these book Scripture only that they had value and should be read and studied. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls contain them but that doesn't make them Scripture either.
Not quite, but close. Prior to Trent the canon was considered "open" and debate on whether or not some things should be in the Bible was still allowed, what Trent did was officially close the matter for all Catholics.

The do however contain a lot of errors, mostly in the historicity of them. Unlike Dr. Luke, the books of the Apocrypha are difficult to align to dates and times sometimes to the degree of years.
That isn't really a problem. Some of the sixty six books contain historical inaccuracies as well, but the purpose of Scripture isn't to tell us minute historical details. The Bible is not a science book or a history book, and we do it no favors by making it one.

Also, some traditions of Christendom have used as few as one single line to create whole dogma's and doctrines. For this reason alone not one single bible that I have has them included. I elected to have them but as a stand alone text. In doing this, do to my reading speed and to the fact that I tend to get lost in books, even the bible, I did not want to begin reading one and allow it to worm its way in my Scripture memory.
I am unaware of such doctrines. Some would say that our practice of praying for the dead is taken from Maccabees, but that is merely a text that supports the Tradition.

Like the Early Church Fathers, I tend to see the value of them and also like them I agree that they simply are not Scripture. To treat them as such I would have to say is not merely foolish but dangerous. When you treat non-Scripture as Scripture then you in effect make God's truth irrelevant in your mind and heart to one degree or another.
The ECF's were divided on the Deuterocanon in much the same way Catholic academics in the West were prior to Trent. Some accepted them outright, some accepted them with qualifications, and others were more critical.
 

Photoss

Senior Member
Sep 15, 2012
213
10
0
#18
Not even Jerome considered these book Scripture only that they had value and should be read and studied.
Just an honest, non-attacking question: Why do you think Jerome left the apocryphal books interspersed with the Old Testament books?
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,622
282
83
#19
What was the Bible that the first christians used? Wasn't it the Septuagint? If it was, then the Apocrypha was there.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#20
I'm slowly reading through the Apocrypha for the first time. From the little I've read, cultural context seems to be a big selling point and historicity seems of less import (except in the case of 1st Maccabees). Yes, the Bible has some historical inaccuracies but nothing compared to the extra books. My thoughts so far:

Bel (Baal) and the Dragon:
From Daniel, Chapter 16 - Greek version. Humorous story poking fun at idol worship. Could the 'dragon' mentioned in the book have been a dinosaur-type creature? Possibly.

Tobit: Beginning and end were good, middle was a little dull. Some interesting cultural references.

Judith: I didn't think much of the first half but the second half of the book was really good.

Additions to Esther: I prefer the Hebrew original but elements of the extra material were interesting.

1st Maccabees: Good book but far too long. Consisted mainly of politics, battles and sieges.

Susanna: A fun short story. Perhaps one of the first courtroom drama/detective stories.