What is in the Apocrypha?

[SearchingForGod]

I know that Catholics have the Apocrypha in their bibles and I'm just curious as to what is in that section of the bible. The bible that I have (The Message version) doesn't have that in it.

Looking at a dictionary definition of Apocrypha, it says that they are "writings or reports not considered genuine." Is this a biased definition? Or are people who use the Apocrypha relying on unreliable sources?

 

[Kemosloby]

It's all old testament stuff. I have it in my bible, a protestant bible, and have read the Apocrypha. I don't know who or why they aren't considered legit. Maybe a Jew would know something about it. Maybe Jesus didn't teach them and they got cut out then. Not really sure.

 

[David1967]

Not that there not considered genuine. Some dont consider them inspired in the same sense as the other books. . Not sure why they are not in most modern versions. The original King James version has it. I sense some politics involved.

 

[Rival]

It's all old testament stuff. I have it in my bible, a protestant bible, and have read the Apocrypha. I don't know who or why they aren't considered legit. Maybe a Jew would know something about it. Maybe Jesus didn't teach them and they got cut out then. Not really sure.

Because the Prophetic Era had ended before they were written.

@SearchingForGod I think you should read them; on their own terms they are quite interesting. Book of Tobit is a bit weird though. Books of the Maccabees are worth reading. You can buy the NRSV Bible with them all in (most apocrypha containing Bibles just come with the Roman Catholic Canon, which fails to include 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and some others).

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you say Tobit is weird?

 

[Rival]

Why do you say Tobit is weird?

The angel and the fish thing.

 

[DavidFirth]

The angel and the fish thing.

I'm not familiar with it as I have never read it. Will you elaborate?

 

[Rival]

I'm not familiar with it as I have never read it. Will you elaborate?

Basically the use of magic by using fish guts that an angel shows Tobit how to perform. Or something like that.

"Then the young man said to the angel, 'Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?' He replied, 'As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman and that person will never be troubled again.'" -Tobit 6:6-7.

 

[DavidFirth]

Basically the use of magic by using fish guts that an angel shows Tobit how to perform. Or something like that.

"Then the young man said to the angel, 'Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?' He replied, 'As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman and that person will never be troubled again.'"

Yeah, that does sound weird.

 

[Shiranui117]

It's all old testament stuff. I have it in my bible, a protestant bible, and have read the Apocrypha. I don't know who or why they aren't considered legit. Maybe a Jew would know something about it. Maybe Jesus didn't teach them and they got cut out then. Not really sure.

First: They're not "Apocrypha". Apocrypha are false writings. These are Deuterocanonical books--meaning "second canon". They come after the Old Testament, and generally fall between the Old and New Testaments, as is the case with the Books of Maccabees and Wisdom of Sirach.They were part of all Christian Bibles until some Protestants decided they didn't like the books--mainly because these books contradict Protestant teaching against such things as free will and prayers for/from the dead. All Catholics and Orthodox Christians (75% of all Christians total) have these books as part of our Old Testaments. These Deuterocanonical books are also cited within the Gospels and the Epistles.

Second: Did you know that if you use a Protestant Bible, you're missing big chunks of the Book of Daniel? Fun fact.

 

[Rival]

First: They're not "Apocrypha". Apocrypha are false writings. These are Deuterocanonical books--meaning "second canon". They come after the Old Testament, and generally fall between the Old and New Testaments, as is the case with the Books of Maccabees and Wisdom of Sirach.They were part of all Christian Bibles until some Protestants decided they didn't like the books--mainly because these books contradict Protestant teaching against such things as free will and prayers for/from the dead. All Catholics and Orthodox Christians (75% of all Christians total) have these books as part of our Old Testaments. These Deuterocanonical books are also cited within the Gospels and the Epistles.

Second: Did you know that if you use a Protestant Bible, you're missing big chunks of the Book of Daniel? Fun fact.

I actually took issue with 'Apocrypha' at one point, but afaik it never meant 'hidden' as in bad, it meant 'hidden' as in inspired but not for liturgical use. I also find (putting my Christian hat back on) 'deuterocanon' a bit less-than-helpful too because it suggests those books are somehow 'secondary' to the others, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Shiranui117]

Not that there not considered genuine. Some dont consider them inspired in the same sense as the other books. . Not sure why they are not in most modern versions. The original King James version has it. I sense some politics involved.

Well, when these books contain verses that completely contradict Calvinist doctrine... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Heck, some Protestants even wanted to take out the Book of James for this same reason.

For example, Wisdom of Sirach, 15:15-20. Compare this to the Calvinist definition of predestination:
If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
17 Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

 

[Shiranui117]

I actually took issue with 'Apocrypha' at one point, but afaik it never meant 'hidden' as in bad, it meant 'hidden' as in inspired but not for liturgical use. I also find (putting my Christian hat back on) 'deuterocanon' a bit less-then-helpful too because it suggests those books are somehow 'secondary' to the others, unless I'm missing something.

I think it's mainly due to when these books were written? But then Wisdom of Solomon is (IIRC) generally included in the list of Deuterocanonicals and not as part of your standard Old Testament, so IDK honestly. I just call the lot of it the Old Testament and move on with life lol

 

[Rival]

I think it's mainly due to when these books were written? But then Wisdom of Solomon is (IIRC) generally included in the list of Deuterocanonicals and not as part of your standard Old Testament, so IDK honestly. I just call the lot of it the Old Testament and move on with life lol

I edited the stupid 'then' typo >.> hate it when people do that. Ahem.

Well, those books aren't part of Tanach anyway, so...it doesn't really bother me lol. I still enjoy reading them though.

 

[Kemosloby]

First: They're not "Apocrypha". Apocrypha are false writings. These are Deuterocanonical books--meaning "second canon". They come after the Old Testament, and generally fall between the Old and New Testaments, as is the case with the Books of Maccabees and Wisdom of Sirach.They were part of all Christian Bibles until some Protestants decided they didn't like the books--mainly because these books contradict Protestant teaching against such things as free will and prayers for/from the dead. All Catholics and Orthodox Christians (75% of all Christians total) have these books as part of our Old Testaments. These Deuterocanonical books are also cited within the Gospels and the Epistles.

Second: Did you know that if you use a Protestant Bible, you're missing big chunks of the Book of Daniel? Fun fact.

So far Jews seem to disagree with you. They say the Apocrypha are not legit. The old testament (before Jesus) is from the Torah. So are the Apocrypha writings included with the Torah today?

 

[David1967]

Calvinist definition of predestination

So the Calvinist trips and falls, hurting his knee. gets up and says, "I'm glad that's over with."

 

[David1967]

Did you know that if you use a Protestant Bible, you're missing big chunks of the Book of Daniel? Fun fact.

I did not know that. What Bible has the full book of Daniel?

 

[Shiranui117]

So far Jews seem to disagree with you. They say the Apocrypha are not legit. The old testament (before Jesus) is from the Torah. So are the Apocrypha writings included with the Torah today?

The Torah and the Jewish canon have no bearing on Christianity. Christians since the first century have used the Septuagint as our canon for the Old Testament. The Jewish canon was only definitively decided after the advent of Christianity. It is the Septuagint from which the Old Testament references are made in the Gospels and the Epistles.

The Septuagint Use in the New Testament - Bible Authenticity
What deuterocanonical books are quoted in the New Testament?

There are loads of other sources for this. Just Google "Deuterocanonical references in New Testament"

Edit: Also, the earliest complete manuscripts of the Bible, such as Codex Sinaiticus, all use the Septuagint and not any Hebrew text for the Old Testament.

 

[Shiranui117]

I did not know that. What Bible has the full book of Daniel?

You can find it in the Septuagint.

Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1
The Septuagint Bible Online

 

[David1967]

You can find it in the Septuagint.

Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1
The Septuagint Bible Online

Thank you!