ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Are Apocrypha Books Needed

The Apocrypha books were in every King James Bible and German Gutenberg Bible from 1611-1828. Many note Jesus, the early and medieval church quoted from them also. Do they need to be put back?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Yochanon on 7/10/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Mark Eaton "We have...enough Scripture to learn in the 66 books......Do we really need more?"

First, I agree with the eariler statement that a Christian does not these books to aid them in there spiritual walk. Many genuine Christians die without knowing these books exist.

But the Bible does not contain 66 books for the vast majority of Christians. It's not the point of needing more, but it is recognizing that the Canon of the Bible is based upon one's tradition. However, I see no jusfication for believing the Bible only contain 66 books, that is post-16th century tradition. I have a problem with those who seem to think the Bible fell out of the sky (by God) with 66 books attached.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/2/09


When the NT writers wrote the New Testament and quoted the Old Testament, they specifically quoted the Greek Septuagint version of the OT, which contained these books. Do we need to know anything else?
---Greyrider on 7/31/09


The blog also raises the issue of the books referencing and corelating with the other 66 books called the complete bible by some Christians since 1828.

If the books were there in Protestant English translations, they should corelate with the rest of scripture, archeology, history and context of Messiah's New Covenant.

a few examples:

Matt 7:16,20=Sirach 27:6
Matt 9:36=Judith 11:19
Matt 11:25=Tobit 7:18
Matt 16:18=Wisdom 16:13
Mark 9:48=Judith 16:17
---Yochanan on 7/28/09


Ignatius:

You are correct, I choose not to spend time reading these books. I did not know they existed before I became a believer and have read only parts of a few of the Apocrypha books.

I also do not read the Gnostic gospels, Jewish Midrash and Talmudic books, LDS Testaments, and most of todays Christian Books.

We have more than enough Scripture to learn in the 66 books of the Book of Books. Do we really need more?
---Mark_Eaton on 7/27/09


Ignatius,
My apologies. I assumed the King James version. This is probably the most conservative of the Bible translations. If we start there, we tend to get the most certain doctrines (As a general rule of thumb, always start with the most conservative references, and spiral out from there).
I reiterate, however, the error is in not considering the Holy Spirit's role in the canonization of the Holy Scriptures. He still guides men who pray and study, just as he did those who were involved in translating and assembling it back then.
---Curtiss on 7/21/09




I agree that these books give no significant knowledge about God. However, to suggest that we learn nothing about salvation, sanctification holiness, grace or mercy through these books is laughable. I also believe Protestant Christians can have a relationship with God without these Books. However, many Protestants go out of there way to prove these books are uninspired. There agruments against them are full of fallacies. There is no valid reason to reject them. No reason to take them out of the Holy Bible.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/20/09


Mark Eaton: "they are NOT included in the Jewish Bible....."

Which Jewish Bible? Since the time of Christ, Jews could not agree what was OT Scripture. Although some group of Christ-Hated Jews in a council (90AD) decided what should be included in the OT (the list is in agreement with Protestant Canon) (they also rejected the NT I might add) it was not blinding to the entire Jewish community.

Although the majority of Jews rejects these books and the NT (isn't that amazing?) there are still some Jews who accept them. The Ethiopian Jews still accept them as Scriptures.

Christ-Hated Jews had no authority to decide which books should be in the Christian Bible.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/19/09


Curtiss "I would recommend that you first get a good grip on the known canonized Bible and the associated doctrines. Once that is complete, you will have a sound mental filter through which to see the apocryphal materials. The LORD is not the author of confusion.
God Bless and hammer away."

But Curtiss, the know canonized Bible for the vast majority of Christians have these books in them. Many are blissfully unaware that only a small percentage of Christians believe they are not inspired. Heck, even some Jews believe they are inspired!

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/19/09


Mart Eaton. It is quite clear that you have not read any of the Deutro Books. To say that "We learn nothing of substance about salvation, justification, sanctification holiness, grace or mercy.These books do not significantly add to our knowledge of God, Jesus, or the Apostles" shows that you have never read them and are just repeating what every else said. I will suggest you read Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah.

They are consider Scriptures by the vast majority of Christians. All the Ancient and Apostolic Churches have them in there Bibles.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/19/09


The only solid reason why many Protestants do not include them because they have been mislead by there superiors to believe they contradict the rest of the 66 books of the Holy Bible. But a careful studying will prove otherwise.

i agree.
---Meira on 7/19/09




"Ray" is me "Ignatius". Sorry about that! I thought I was in another forum :)

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/19/09


Why would they need put back if they were never included in the Hebrew Bible? They are Hebrew texts and Jews never saw them as scriptural, so if people added them to the OT scriptures afterward, wouldn't you think they should've added them to the NT instead? But they are not NT either, so, like alot of Bible versions, they got put in their own section, like we have the concordance or the index today, good reference material.
---MIchael on 7/18/09


Sorry to interrupt, but I believe you have both made the error of not considering the Holy Spirit's role in the canonization of the Bible as we know it. While it may have been done THROUGH man, can any of us honestly declare that the Bible came FROM man? That being said, I would recommend that you first get a good grip on the known canonized Bible and the associated doctrines. Once that is complete, you will have a sound mental filter through which to see the apocryphal materials. The LORD is not the author of confusion.
God Bless and hammer away.
---Curtiss on 7/18/09


Very little substance of doctrine can be learned from the Apocrypha books. We learn nothing of substance about salvation, justification, sanctification holiness, grace or mercy.

These books do not significantly add to our knowledge of God, Jesus, or the Apostles.

If they are classificed as OT books, are they included in the Jewish Tanakh? No, they are NOT included in the Jewish Bible and are not thought of as Scripture by Jewish scholars.

They were included in the books of the Septuagint translation project. In addition, the RCC omitted two of the Apocryphal books itself, the book of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.
---Mark_Eaton on 7/18/09


Ditto Pat & Kevin. That's my whole point. Unfortunately, many Christians, etc., never read thru the entire Bible -- struggle with the existing 66 books. So, the cure is to add more books to the Bible? Not!

The Bible, minus the Apocrypha books, is more than adequate to lead people to salvation. For persons who can come to genuine salvation in Jesus from studying the Bible & Apocrypha -- go for it if it'll get you there. :)
---Leon on 7/18/09


Meira:

Actually, the first printed Protestant Bibles included these books (and some still do today). One may argue that it was included for historical reasons only, but it was included nonetheless. It was only later that these books was removed entirely, purely for economical reasons (it was much cheaper to print Bibles without these books). However, all Apostolic Churches of the West (Rome) and East (Orthodoxy,Oriental etc) include these books because they are Holy Scriptures.

The only solid reason why many Protestants do not include them because they have been mislead by there superiors to believe they contradict the rest of the 66 books of the Holy Bible. But a careful studying will prove otherwise.

In IC.XC
---Ray on 7/17/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Forget about the Apocrypha books.

Humans have this tendency to complicate the simple things in life especially the humans living today where knowledge has grown ten-fold. They try to make their relationship with God more complicated than it should be. Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, was writing about this same thing. He said "Don't let others spoil your faith and joy with their philosophies, their wrong and shollow answers build on men's thoughts and ideas." Jesus gave us two simple commandments - to love God and to love your neighbor. While most christians KNOW that we must love, but don't know HOW. For starters, do an online KJV bible search for "one another," "each other," and "encourag."
---Steveng on 7/17/09


Leon, Pat, and others.

You are all blissfully unaware that for the vast majority of Christians today (Latin/Eastern Catholics, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, and other Eastern Churches), the Bible does not contain 66 books. The Canon is different in each tradition, but they all agree that the Deutercanonical books should be included. Only a small minority of Protestants believe otherwise.

You may believe that the Bible should be 66 books, but you have no historical proof. You may believe these books has errors in them, but Atheists have also try to say that your Bible has contradictions in them, yet all Christians agree that there are only "apparent contradiction". The same with the Deutero books.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 7/17/09


But the Apocrypha IS canonized by Orthodox, other Eastern Churhes, and Roman Catholics.

It's just some Protestants that don't accept them--and they are the minority. ---Cluny


VERY TRUE. I should have stated that the aprocrypha books should be added to the protestant Bible.
---Meira on 7/17/09


\\apocrypha can be read as the stories they are supposed to be but it is good it is not included in the Bible...
What we have is enough for total salvation if that is the concern
---pat on 7/17/09\\

But they ARE included in the Bible by the vast majority of Christians.

Where do you get the idea that they are not included in the Bible?
---Cluny on 7/17/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Leon: Do you believe the omission of The Apocrypha books significantly adds to (enhances) one's ability to establish a genuine relationship with the true & living God of the Bible? Or, since there is no doctrinal incompatiblity between the Apocrypha and rest of the Bible, it really causes misleading confusion that can cause people to travel the broad way to their destruction by presuming to exclude them?
---Cluny on 7/16/09


Kevin
i find your position interesting
you are right

if what we have is not enough >>> then nothing will be enough

apocrypha can be read as the stories they are supposed to be but it is good it is not included in the Bible...
What we have is enough for total salvation if that is the concern
---pat on 7/17/09


Cluny: Do you believe the addition of The Apocrypha books significantly adds to (enhances) one's ability to establish a genuine relationship with the true & living God of the Bible (66 inspired books)? Or, is it just possible that the doctrinal incompatability between the Apocrypha & Bible really causes misleading confusion that can cause people to travel the broad way to their destruction?
---Leon on 7/16/09


\\
The apocryphal books should be included. They provide a history that is not otherwise included in the canonized scripture. \\

But the Apocrypha IS canonized by Orthodox, other Eastern Churhes, and Roman Catholics.

It's just some Protestants that don't accept them--and they are the minority.
---Cluny on 7/15/09


Send a Free Christian Tract


For many people these books seem to confirm only what they want to believe about God & His creation. I wonder, do they also believe the God of the Bible?

The problem with adding these spurious books is they don't square with the consistent teaching of the God-inspired 66 books of the Bible. Instead of Bible clarity, they lead to confusion. God isn't the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33)

So, is this about further edifying sound Judeao-Christian doctrine or is it only the manifestations of non-believing, sin corrupt minds? I believe the latter is true. (2 Tim 3, "...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth...")
---Leon on 7/15/09


The apocryphal books should be included. They provide a history that is not otherwise included in the canonized scripture.

The feast of dedication (hanukkah) that Yahushau (jesus) celebrate was a rememberance of the Maccabean Revolt and the rededication of the temple. where do we learn about that? in the "apocyrphal" book of maccabbe 1 & 2.

Yahushua refers to the book of Enoch as "scripture" in Matt 22:29. Nowhere in the OT does it refer to angels being given in marriage, but it does in the book of Enoch.

Not reading certain books is a tradition that is taught as doctrine. (matt 15:9)
but everyone should study to show themselves approved unto Elohim.
---Meira on 7/14/09


kevin-most of the books you illuded too are from the "Orthodox Jewish Oral tradition that were added later during the 3rd Century to support Pharasetical tradition and authority to interpret their sects view of scripture living. "Not every Jew" was a Pharasee or beleives in Kabbala. Does every Christian beleive in Catholic Mysticism and praying to saints? No.

Many Jewish books are Midrashs or commentaries with more historical & cultural details. Not all of the books were Canonized but make interesting study for "mature" beleivers. The Catholic church "does" have in their possession many interesting historical accounts. However, check everything with the Bible Archeology and Holy Spirit.
---Meira on 7/14/09


I often wonder why God didn't physically write a Bible and drop it on the earth or why Jesus didn't sit down one day and write the Bible by hand. No, God decided that the Bible was to be scribed by man's hand and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why? Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together."
And, Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another". I think that by a healthy debate of these issues a man can form his own defense for his own beliefs and faith or align himself with a trusted interpretation. As for me, I will use the statistical argument, as failed as it may be, that most modern Bibles leave them out so that's good enough for me for now.
---TIMOTHY on 7/14/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


\\
ok so if we are going to add the Jewish Apocryphal books...\\

kevin, what you say does not follow from your initial "if".

The first generations of Christians DID accept the Apocrypha as part of the OT.

And the NT canon was already established by (if not before) the early 4th century.

Certain books, including the infancy gospels, were always considered spurious.

Others, such as the letters of St. Ignatius, while not part of the canon, were preserved because it was felt there was something in them worthwhile.

The real question is why do Protestants exclude the Apocrypha, since Christians foir 1500 years in East and West had accepted it.

That is rather late, don't you think?
---Cluny on 7/13/09


ok so if we are going to add the Jewish Apocryphal books we should add the Christian Apocryphals also, so we might as well add the infancy gospels,the gnostic gospels,all the Acts,and might as well add the entirty of the assumptions of Moses and not just the first five chapters as it presently is.and if we have gone that far why not add the Jewish Wisdom texts also Zohar,kabbalah then why not the complete Psalms and all the Apocalypses,so might as well add the Avesta to finish it out.
and for sure if God could'nt reveal the truth to someone in all of that,well =,(
---kevin on 7/13/09


\\But we have groups who now are using certain apocryphal writings, including in public worship services. I have been mainly in the New Testament. How have the apocrypha obviously helped you, if I may ask?
---Bill_bila5659 on 7/11/09\\

The books called Apocrypha are actually part of the Old Testament.
---Cluny on 7/12/09


YOU decide what YOU are going to need to know for your own "personal" LOVE DEVOTION. We are supposed to have a PERSONAL devotion to Jesus.

Paul made the personal decision to know nothing about devotion except "Christ and Him crucified",...meaning that he didn't care anything about....

1) the flood.

2) the Bereans or any ancient culture.

3) events that had occured before Jesus was on earth or even events that will happen in prophecy.

The Lord wouldn't have allowed this to be said if it was not also an option for us.

I think it is a wise decision not to become distracted from a deep relationship with Jesus by all of the academic/scholarly pursuits that satisfy our ego/pride.
---more_excellent_way on 7/11/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Yochanon, you say many of the Apocrypha "note Jesus" > how about if you post one quote of what notes Jesus and how this has helped you to get more into obeying Jesus? There are people who note and quote Jesus, and they are not Christian. So, just noting Him does not make a person or writing inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have looked at what I understood were supposed to be Apocryphal writings, and they seemed more like imitatory writings. But we have groups who now are using certain apocryphal writings, including in public worship services. I have been mainly in the New Testament. How have the apocrypha obviously helped you, if I may ask?
---Bill_bila5659 on 7/11/09


Yes, Protestants need to put them back.

We never took them out.

I won't have a mutilated KJV in my house.

EVERY major English translation up until the New American Standard of 1961 (or thereabouts) contained them.
---Cluny on 7/11/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.