Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Apocrypha Books
- Thread starter jaybird
- Start date
rpguy
Member
They are in some churches.
My understanding of the Apocrypha books of the bible is that they were not considered God inspired. They are descriptions of history of Israel at times there was not a prophet such as in some parts of the dispersion of Israel and Judah, and such as that they experienced after God issued a bill of divorce in Jer 3:8. I do read different explanations on Goggle but am without confidence in their conclusions.
Hopefully there are some here that can give a better idea as to their investigations. I came out of a church that even wrote doctrines based the books of 2 Maccabees 12:43 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
“And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,”
Edward
2024 Supporter
I've done some reading in The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jubilees, and there was another one that I can't remember right now, but I find these books highly interesting. I keep reminding myself that these books are not canonized, so are not to be revered as such, however, I don't use these books in any salvific way so that's perhaps moot to the end purpose?
These books (Enoch & Jubilees) are quoted from, in canonized scripture, so there's an unofficial validation right there, in my mind at least. If memory serves, I believe that the book of Enoch used to be scripture in OT days, before they reworked it into the KJV I think. Enoch was highly revered and was in fact a heavenly scribe while on Earth. So Enoch comes with some pretty high marks on His resume which should make us not afraid to pick it up and read it. There's said to be some different versions of Enoch around and some are known to be counterfits, so keep that in mind also. I don't know which version I have on my hard drive.
That said, then there's the first chapter in Enoch, which states that the Book of Enoch isn't for their generation, but for a far distant generation. In the last days I presume. And it did get lost for hundreds/thousands (?) of years and they found it again in the early 70's I think. Wow huh? Supposedly the book is for us now, in our generation?! Uh...yeah, that makes me want to read it right there. I might be meant to know some of it?
So while controversial, I find myself not afraid of it and I am willing to read it. It hasn't ever disagreed with canon, there's no contradictions and the additional details that it adds to bible stories are interesting. I also have faith, that my Lord isn't going to lead me down a path of untruth in my walk with Him.
So in conclusion, I submit that the book of Enoch is ok. It may be extra-biblical, but that doesn't make it un-biblical.
These books (Enoch & Jubilees) are quoted from, in canonized scripture, so there's an unofficial validation right there, in my mind at least. If memory serves, I believe that the book of Enoch used to be scripture in OT days, before they reworked it into the KJV I think. Enoch was highly revered and was in fact a heavenly scribe while on Earth. So Enoch comes with some pretty high marks on His resume which should make us not afraid to pick it up and read it. There's said to be some different versions of Enoch around and some are known to be counterfits, so keep that in mind also. I don't know which version I have on my hard drive.
That said, then there's the first chapter in Enoch, which states that the Book of Enoch isn't for their generation, but for a far distant generation. In the last days I presume. And it did get lost for hundreds/thousands (?) of years and they found it again in the early 70's I think. Wow huh? Supposedly the book is for us now, in our generation?! Uh...yeah, that makes me want to read it right there. I might be meant to know some of it?
So while controversial, I find myself not afraid of it and I am willing to read it. It hasn't ever disagreed with canon, there's no contradictions and the additional details that it adds to bible stories are interesting. I also have faith, that my Lord isn't going to lead me down a path of untruth in my walk with Him.
So in conclusion, I submit that the book of Enoch is ok. It may be extra-biblical, but that doesn't make it un-biblical.
Edward
2024 Supporter
I'm not sayng they should be part of scripture, I'm just saying that I'm not afraid to read them.
The scriptures for salvific purposes are complete, but they can't be complete as in, says everything there is to know about God. Our Bible is an introductory love letter from Him to us. We'll probably continue to get to know God even after we're living in the New Jerusalem with Him...for an eternity.
Edward
2024 Supporter
Well...the Holy Spirit is able to give us revelation on the same scriptures that we've even studied for a lifetime already, so I'd have to agree with you on that. (I haven't studied for a life time
)I guess what I'm trying to say, is that while we should hold the scriptures as primary for our growth in God, that there are extra-biblical sources available to us that teach us more and I don't think that we should reject extra-biblicval teachings across the board, just because it might not be in scripture.
Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Pegasus
Member
There is much history on what the Church fathers called the deutercanonical books. From the early outset of the post Apostolic church there were mixed opinions.
As it so happens there is a canon discussion going on at another site. What I provide below is the most comprehensive response, which at the end of this post I give due credit and link for those who want to examine the source material.
Here's some of the history leading up to the council of Trent.
Athanasius (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia)
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture)
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
LikewiseRufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon ofScripture)
Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocryphaand forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebiusattests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitationabout the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-on-catholicism.7991769/page-12#post-70878338
If anyone would like to discuss the debates at the Council of Trent and opposing views let me know. I have info on that as well.
As it so happens there is a canon discussion going on at another site. What I provide below is the most comprehensive response, which at the end of this post I give due credit and link for those who want to examine the source material.
Here's some of the history leading up to the council of Trent.
Athanasius (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia)
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture)
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
LikewiseRufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon ofScripture)
Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocryphaand forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebiusattests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitationabout the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-on-catholicism.7991769/page-12#post-70878338
If anyone would like to discuss the debates at the Council of Trent and opposing views let me know. I have info on that as well.
jaybird
Member
James 4 5
5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?
you know what book James is quoting here? you wont find it in any bible today. the scripture James is referring to, and he even calls it scripture, has been gone for a long time. no one is trying to add books that were not there in the first place, they are searching for scriptures such as this that are missing today. this book was important to James, he was the brother of Jesus and i think he would know what he was talking about.
Jim Parker
Member
There are many references, allusions, similarities to apocrypha in the NT. It seems the NT writers didn't "need no stinkin' canon" to know what was inspired and what was not.
Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 - Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 - Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 - Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8 - Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24 - Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 - Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 - Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 - Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 - Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s - Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 - Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11 - Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15 - Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 - Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37 - Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 - Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 - Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17 - Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 - Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17 - Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1 - Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 - Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23 - Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s - Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s - Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3 - Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 - Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s - Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21 - Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 - Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10 - Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 - Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 - Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4 - Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 - Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17 - Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17 - Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 - Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2 - Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 - Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20 - Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5 - Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15 - Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22 - Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35
Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15 - Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14 - Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18 - Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17 - Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1 - Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2
Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s - Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10 - Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15 - Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18 - Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14 - Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9
Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6 - Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1 - Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5 - Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10 - Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17 - Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19
Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1 - Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10 - Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8 - Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4 - Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6 - Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37
Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2 - Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30] - Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17 - Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22 - Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7 - Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5
Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18 - Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22 - Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26 - Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34 - Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s
Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22 - John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1 - John 3:8 Sirach 16:21 - John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16 - John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s - John 3:13 Baruch 3:29
John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39 - John 3:32 Tobit 4:6 - John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s - John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8 - John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16 - John 6:35 Sirach 24:21
John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s] - John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24 - John 8:53 Sirach 44:19 - John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4 - John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18 - John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9 - John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3 - John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11 - Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26 - Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19
Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12 - Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7 - Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32 - - Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12 - Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32 - Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6
Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10 - Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19 - Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40 - Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21 - Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1
Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8 - Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25 - Acts 10:22 1 Macc 11:30, 33 etc. - Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1 - Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8
Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s - Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7 - Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc. - Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19 - Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9
Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26 - Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17 - Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21 - Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41 - Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9
Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30 - Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10 - Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s - Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3 - Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26 - Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20 - Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17 - Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1 - Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17 - Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9 -
Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18 - Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6 - Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10 - Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7 - Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17 - Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41
Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46 - Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5 - Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31 - Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49 - Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1
Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6 - Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5 - Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13 - Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15 - Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1
Well, you get the picture.
There's over 300 of them.
iakov the fool
Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 - Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 - Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 - Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8 - Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24 - Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 - Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 - Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 - Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 - Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s - Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 - Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11 - Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15 - Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 - Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37 - Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 - Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 - Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17 - Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 - Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17 - Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1 - Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 - Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23 - Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s - Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s - Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3 - Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 - Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s - Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21 - Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 - Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10 - Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 - Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 - Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4 - Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 - Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17 - Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17 - Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 - Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2 - Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 - Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20 - Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5 - Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15 - Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22 - Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35
Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15 - Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14 - Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18 - Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17 - Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1 - Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2
Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s - Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10 - Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15 - Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18 - Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14 - Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9
Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6 - Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1 - Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5 - Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10 - Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17 - Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19
Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1 - Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10 - Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8 - Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4 - Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6 - Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37
Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2 - Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30] - Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17 - Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22 - Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7 - Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5
Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18 - Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22 - Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26 - Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34 - Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s
Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22 - John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1 - John 3:8 Sirach 16:21 - John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16 - John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s - John 3:13 Baruch 3:29
John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39 - John 3:32 Tobit 4:6 - John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s - John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8 - John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16 - John 6:35 Sirach 24:21
John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s] - John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24 - John 8:53 Sirach 44:19 - John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4 - John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18 - John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9 - John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3 - John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11 - Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26 - Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19
Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12 - Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7 - Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32 - - Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12 - Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32 - Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6
Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10 - Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19 - Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40 - Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21 - Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1
Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8 - Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25 - Acts 10:22 1 Macc 11:30, 33 etc. - Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1 - Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8
Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s - Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7 - Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc. - Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19 - Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9
Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26 - Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17 - Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21 - Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41 - Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9
Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30 - Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10 - Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s - Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3 - Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26 - Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20 - Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17 - Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1 - Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17 - Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9 -
Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18 - Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6 - Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10 - Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7 - Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17 - Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41
Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46 - Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5 - Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31 - Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49 - Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1
Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6 - Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5 - Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13 - Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15 - Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1
Well, you get the picture.
There's over 300 of them.
iakov the fool
Pegasus
Member
I bet I can find everyone of those quotes elsewhere in the OT.
Pick out your 5 favorite ones word for word from the deutercanon books and put the NT quote under it.
I'll show you where an allusion is not a quote and where it is found elsewhere in the OT.
As can be seen, there are many replies as well as well as definitions of apocryphal books. Therefore I ask you if you are considering the apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic Bible, namely Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther, or something different?
BTW I do recommend reading 1 & 2 Maccabees because it is an excellent source of the history and feelings of the Jewish people prior to the advent of Jesus Christ.
BTW 2 Saying above that should not be considered as an endorsement of anything Roman Catholic, which of course is forbidden here
Pegasus
Member
The Maccabbes are good to read for historical context. Especially to show the unfolding of the prophecies of Daniel. Again as historical as we can glean from Josephus. Inspired Holy Scriptures? No. There is no prophet speaking in either 1 Mac or 2 Mac. Unlike 1&2 Samuel 1&2 Kings where God and prophets speaking in the Name of The LORD.
I find it interesting anyone would admit Sirach (Ben Sira) as inspired Holy Scriptures. Ben Sira in his introduction makes it clear the work of his grandfather was a commentary on the law and prophets. He does not claim divine revelation. At best the Christian equivalent would be church father works. Here's an excerpt :
Ben Sira 1: New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Foreword
Inasmuch as many and great truths have been given to us through the Law, the prophets, and the authors who followed them,for which the instruction and wisdom of Israel merit praise, it is the duty of those who read the scriptures not only to become knowledgeable themselves but also to use their love of learning in speech and in writing to help others less familiar. So my grandfather Jesus, who had long devoted himself to the study of the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books of our ancestors, and had acquired great familiarity with them, was moved to write something himself regarding instruction and wisdom. He did this so that those who love learning might, by accepting what he had written, make even greater progress in living according to the Law.
You are invited therefore to read it with good will and attention, with indulgence for any failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages. For words spoken originally in Hebrew do not have the same effect when they are translated into another language. That is true not only of this book but of the Law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books, which differ no little when they are read in the original.
Why would one want to consider this inspired Scriptures when the author explains the work is "an earnest effort."
I'm sure Ben Sira teaches love and wisdom, but is an interpretation of the law, what we call commentary today.
jaybird
Member
i think the official apocrytha books would be those of the LXX that are not included in the non Catholic bibles. i cant remember if the Catholics have all the LXX books or not.
then you have books like Jasher, Thomas, Enoch, Jubilees and such, i still call these apocrytha books but technically i think there's a different name.
i consider most of these scripture thats good for teaching, but in todays world you have inspired and non inspired, when you label a book uninspired it becomes viewed as a false book. i put more faith in the spirit then a group of men that are going to tell me what i can and cant read.
jaybird
Member
Just to make myself clear, and NOT to argue: I never stated anything of the sort. I merely included it in the list for exactly the reasons I stated.
Pegasus
Member
This may help a bit. Some scholars don't think quotations are merited and James was teaching a scriptural truth which encompassed quite a few OT passages.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=802
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/james-4-5.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/james-4-5.html
Pegasus
Member
Post up the comparison. Remember, the poster was claiming those Apocryphal quotes were quoted or alluded to in the NT.