Do you think the Apocrypha was God inspired?

[Mark Prescott]

I have recently taken an interest in the Apocrypha. Although I am not Catholic, I have been seriously considering theese books. As of yet, I am not sure wheather or not the Apocrypha was God-inspired, but I am open minded about this belief. Especially Bel and the Dragon. I see no fallacies in there. What are you thoughts about it? Right now I am reading the book of Enoch. Very interesting to say the least.

[bookworm]

I personally say no. I think if any of those books were inspired they would have been put in the Bible. That was one of the criteria of the Cannon.
Just because not all of them contain fallacies doesn’t mean they are divinely inspired. I can write something without fallacies, but it would still be merely my own words.

[SoccerLOTR]

I personally say no. I think if any of those books were inspired they would have been put in the Bible. That was one of the criteria of the Cannon.
Just because not all of them contain fallacies doesn’t mean they are divinely inspired. I can write something without fallacies, but it would still be merely my own words.

What is your criteria for "inspired"? And why do you say that they would have been put in the Bible if they were inspired? Some of these texts are considered inspired by some, and it WAS a human group that put together the list of what books to include and not. Not to say that they didn't seek guidance from God and study the words, but who's to say they didn't disagree on a couple books and just excluded them to be safe? Ok, that being said--I AM NOT saying that they WERE wrong...just leaving it open to the POSSIBILITY that they didn't include something.

Some of the Apocrypha I can definitely understand not being included in the Bible. I've read a little, and some (like the Book of Joseph, i think it is) are COMPLETELY not in line with scripture and I can see a definite bias toward the Catholic church in them, hence why they are not included in our Bible. Also some have been studied and shown not to be written in the time period that they were supposedly written in, leading to the obvious assumption that they can't be trusted. However, some of the historical books I'll have to read more to know for sure, but I don't completely know why they weren't included. Some of the books of the Bible are simply historical books that show how God worked in the lives of His people (half the Old Testament) and Esther doesn't even mention God in it, yet it is included in our Scriptures. So why are some of the histoical books of the Apocrypha not included if only as reference material?

I'm with you Mark...I'm working my way through reading some of it, and if anything, it is interesting to see a bit more of the cultural history, as well as better understand some of the Catholic beliefs and where they get some of their opinions. So for my opinion on the answer to the question, I will say "some no, some i don't know yet."

[The Top Crusader]

Well one thing is people want to take all the Apocrypha as one thing and say if one book of it is wrong the rest must be THROWN OUT!!!! But yeah I see no reason why one book could be good and another bad. Is Enoch actually in the Apocrypha? For some reason I was thinking it wasn't technically part of that--but I could easily be wrong. I am a big Book of Enoch fan, though.

An important thing for critics to remember (and then ignore after they remember it ) is that some of these books were included as part of holy scripture longer than they have NOT been... I'm not sure why we want to assume what we have now is 100% accurate and the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who lived in other eras had it wrong. Not that it is impossible for that to be the case... like SoccerLOTR said.

[bookworm]

Rereading my post, I see that I wasn’t clear. By ‘no’ I didn’t mean there’s no possibility that any of them are, I meant if I had to choose one way or the other I would say no.
I have studied these as well (but not in too much depth) and as you say some were left out for obvious reasons. As for the others, you’re absolutely right that they had doubts so they left them out to ‘play it safe’. But that doesn’t mean they were, it just doesn’t mean they weren’t. If you know what I mean.

I will say "some no, some i don't know yet."

That’s what I meant.
I wouldn’t say any definitely were, but there may be the possibility. However, with multiple no’s and the rest uncertain, I would lean in the no direction.

[Sherlock]

Yeah, the Book of Maccabees has some pretty blatant stuff in there about Purgatory which (I think) is one of the reasons that the non-Catholic Bibles don't have it. As for the other Books, I can't speak as to why each of the others were rejected.

[SoccerLOTR]

as for the Book of Joseph, it pretty much states that Mary married Joseph when he was an old man and he'd been formerly married and had grown kids from that marriage, who are the brothers that Jesus had. Catholics hold that Mary remained a virgin through her life, and therefore, did not have any more kids. Hence why they accepted the idea that Jesus' brothers were from another marriage.

[John Chrysostom]

I think it's important to first define which books you mean by Apocrypha because there are many different books that are called Apocrypha. I would say that the deuterocanonical books of 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, 1-4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151 are inspired.

[Josef1004]

The thing we must remember about inspiration is that it was not something that was discovered centuries after the fact by a conclave of bearded old men browsing through a collection of good books selecting which ones ought to be in the Bible. The actual men who penned the words of Scripture were aware of the fact that they were putting in written form the very word of God. So the inspired Scriptures were known to be such right from the start.

[John Chrysostom]

There was great debate amongst the early Church about what would make up the Canon of Scripture and a final decision wasn't made until 393 at the Council of Hippo.

[SoccerLOTR]

The thing we must remember about inspiration is that it was not something that was discovered centuries after the fact by a conclave of bearded old men browsing through a collection of good books selecting which ones ought to be in the Bible. The actual men who penned the words of Scripture were aware of the fact that they were putting in written form the very word of God. So the inspired Scriptures were known to be such right from the start.

If you go strictly by that logic, you're still missing something--maybe the people writing knew it, but how did people figure it out 50-100-300 years later once the writers were all dead? What if some of the apocrypha writers were writing inspired words and they knew it and their friends knew it--but then years and years later the book is uncovered and the Christians of the time don't know what to do with it and have to decide on if it is inspired or not. That's the question.

[Josef1004]

The thing we must remember about inspiration is that it was not something that was discovered centuries after the fact by a conclave of bearded old men browsing through a collection of good books selecting which ones ought to be in the Bible. The actual men who penned the words of Scripture were aware of the fact that they were putting in written form the very word of God. So the inspired Scriptures were known to be such right from the start.

If you go strictly by that logic, you're still missing something--maybe the people writing knew it, but how did people figure it out 50-100-300 years later once the writers were all dead? What if some of the apocrypha writers were writing inspired words and they knew it and their friends knew it--but then years and years later the book is uncovered and the Christians of the time don't know what to do with it and have to decide on if it is inspired or not. That's the question.

Why would a book that is inspired by God be covered for years and years in the first place?

[John Chrysostom]

I agree books inspired by God would not remain hidden for years and years. Which is why the Orthodox and Catholic Churches accept the deuterocanonical books which have been part of Jewish canon since 300 BC when the Septuagint was translated in Alexandria.

[SoccerLOTR]

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the books mentioned in the Bible but not been found?

[Josef1004]

What about them? They were copies of Scripture that had been in use all along and was known to be Scripture, right? Yes there are books mentioned in the Bible that are not the Bible. If they passed out of circulation, is there any great wonder, if they were never held as Scripture?

[John Chrysostom]

The Dead Sea Scrolls include the Septuagint which has the deuterocanonical books.

Josef1004: The version of Scripture used after 393 until the 1500s when some denominations started using a different version included the deuterocanonical books of the Apocrypha.

[SoccerLOTR]

What about them? They were copies of Scripture that had been in use all along and was known to be Scripture, right? Yes there are books mentioned in the Bible that are not the Bible. If they passed out of circulation, is there any great wonder, if they were never held as Scripture?

Nevermind the first part, I was thinking of something else. But how do you know they wouldn't be considered scripture if they were around today? The books are referenced as being a part of the same Biblical history that is included in the Old Testament, so why would they be any less accurate? If the authors considered the other books important and reason to not mention something in their own script because it's already been written, why would it not be cannonical?

[LJ Gibbs]

It all comes down to how are bible was put together. Its like trying to compare the Christian Bible and the Torah as well as the Jewish books of law and histories...Oh wait they're all the exact same books. The only real differences are the leaving out of the new testament except by Messianic Jews; and the inclusion of what we call the apocrypha they call history and some prophecy.

[rickyderocher]

The Apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament.

The Apocrypha contains numerous geographical and historical errors which show it to be the work of men and not divinely inspired.

Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians not the Assyrians!

It teaches that alm giving (giving to the poor) can forgive sins - we know that only the Blood of Jesus can do that!

Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."

[The Top Crusader]

The Apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament.

Like I said long ago when this thread was started, I don't think the Book of Enoch is considered part of the Apocrypha. It is, however, directly quoted in the Book of Jude.