What can I learn from the Apocrypha Books?

[Shawn Sunshine]

Ok, so even though they are not considered cannon and not included in most bibles. Is there any value in reading them? Do they say anything in the various books that differ from the old and new testament?

[Jamie D]

I'll say this much, the vision of Hell in the Apocalypse of Peter is frightening.

[Shawn Sunshine]

Hmm wait so just how many books are there then in the Apocrypha? I see the Revised Standard Version use some of them.
like Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon.

[spacial]

I tend to think part of the problem is there are potentially a huge number of apocrypha books.

Writing was not uncommon at that time and huge numbers of texts of every subject imaginable would have been produced.

There would also have been many people called Peter, writing stories about aliens, traveling to the other side of the galaxy to battle whatever and finding a planet entirely inhabited by some 1920s version of Chacago. But sadly, such were simply not considered relevant enough for inclusion in the Bible.

The four Gospels, for example, were included, because there was a substantial amount of evidence to show they had originated from reasonably reliable sources. What the modern TV cop show might call, Chain of Evidence. The same mention of verification is also use by scholars of Islam.

Sadly, for the proponents of the Bible, Islam, not to mention the huge number of innocent people convicted, the method is not as reliable as it seems.

The approach is actually part of the academic process, starting from a given source, usually one that is generally accepted as reliable, then working forward, in reliable steps. Equally, starting form where you are and working back to the source, accepting that each step, having been verified, will be reliable.

It fails firstly because what is judged to be reliable is a matter of opinion. Because something sounds right or is generally accepted, is not the same as being right. Hell, for example, clearly is a preposterous notion. The more we look at it, the less reliable and less credable it becomes. Yet to say that to most Christians almost invariable results in some snooty dismissal followed by a visit from the local 9 95 god botherer.

So, basically, the reason some books are deemed Apocrypha is not part of a general conspiracy by those nasty anit-christ popes. It's because they are obvious nonsense written by numerous people in ancient and not so ancient times, to entertain or simply, in the case of Paul, to describe the effect of being utterly insane.

[Anna]

Not strictly part of the official Apocrypha but IMHO the most useful text not included in the Bible (for reasons explained in the linked book below)  that any Christian can read is the Didache.  It is described as a manual used by first century Christians and the oldest surving text of it predates everything else in the New Testament. For me as a historian it therefore has an authority that the rest of the NT lacks.

If you are interested in non-canonical works then I'd recommend having a look.

This is a book I found quite interesting in its discussion.
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Didache-Window-Earliest-Christians/dp/0281059535/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357676231&sr=8-2

[peky]

I like them all, my favorites are Enoch 1 and 2, and the gospel of Marie Magdalene.

Having say that, the hidden books like the new testament books were all written by men influenced by the age in which they lived, and skewed by their own beliefs and political agendas.

[spacial]

I understand they were never hidden as such, just rejected from the canonical texts.

The main texts, which we now refer to as the Bible, were, of course, hidden for about 1000 years. Partly by being written in a language only selected elite could understand and partly by threatening unauthorised people from reading them or even owning them.

Being burned to death, boiled in oil, drowning, were some of the more imaginative ways of killing those that disobeyed.

It did allow the Churches to impose a number of interesting measures such as the presumption to forgive sin, later modified to the exclusive authority.

I'm not aware of any specific conspiracy over the other texts, though even knowing of their existance may have been enough to be accused of herracy which of course, meant a fiery end.

[peky]

I understand they were never hidden as such, just rejected from the canonical texts.

The main texts, which we now refer to as the Bible, were, of course, hidden for about 1000 years. Partly by being written in a language only selected elite could understand and partly by threatening unauthorised people from reading them or even owning them.

Being burned to death, boiled in oil, drowning, were some of the more imaginative ways of killing those that disobeyed.

It did allow the Churches to impose a number of interesting measures such as the presumption to forgive sin, later modified to the exclusive authority.

I'm not aware of any specific conspiracy over the other texts, though even knowing of their existance may have been enough to be accused of herracy which of course, meant a fiery end.

apocrypha means "hiden," but semantics aside....to Jews, there is no "Old Testament." The books that Christians call the New Testament are not part of Jewish scripture. The so-called Old Testament is known to us as Written Torah or the Tanakh.

`This is a list of the books of Written Torah, in the order in which they appear in Jewish translations, with the Hebrew name of the book, a translation of the Hebrew name (where it is not the same as the English name), and English names of the books (where it is not the same as the Hebrew name). The Hebrew names of the first five books are derived from the first few words of the book. The text of each book is more or less the same in Jewish translations as what you see in Christian bibles, although there are some occasional, slight differences in the numbering of verses and there are some significant differences in the translations.

TORAH (The Law):

    Berei->-bleeped-<-h (In the beginning...) (Genesis)
    Shemoth (The names...) (Exodus)
    Vayiqra (And He called...) (Leviticus)
    Bamidbar (In the wilderness...) (Numbers)
    Devarim (The words...) (Deuteronomy)

NEVI'IM (The Prophets):

    Yehoshua (Joshua)
    Shoftim (Judges)
    Shmuel (I &II Samuel)
    Melakhim (I & II Kings)
    Yeshayah (Isaiah)
    Yirmyah (Jeremiah)
    Yechezqel (Ezekiel)
    The Twelve (treated as one book):
        Hoshea (Hosea)
        Yoel (Joel)
        Amos
        Ovadyah (Obadiah)
        Yonah (Jonah)
        Mikhah (Micah)
        Nachum
        Chavaqquq (Habbakkuk)
        Tzefanyah (Zephaniah)
        Chaggai
        Zekharyah (Zechariah)
        Malakhi

KETHUVIM (The Writings):

    Tehillim (Psalms)
    Mishlei (Proverbs)
    Iyov (Job)
    Shir Ha-Shirim (Song of Songs)
    Ruth
    Eikhah (Lamentations)
    Qoheleth (the author's name) (Ecclesiastes)
    Esther
    Daniel
    Ezra & Nechemyah (Nehemiah) (treated as one book)
    Divrei Ha-Yamim (The words of the days) (Chronicles)

Note that Catholics also include the book of the Maccabees as part of their "old testament" The Maccabees, another Jewish book, is not part of the "Jewish bible"

It should be noted that the early Christians were mostly Jews who had not yet have "divorced" completely from Judaism. As such most of the "hidden books" were written by Christian Jews.

The Torah (which is Cannon for the Jews) and the rest of the Tanakh were never hidden to the Jews.

[SarahM777]

Peky,

If you don't mind my asking,I am just curious about this,Why is Daniel included under the writings and not the prophets?

[Annah]

Both Nehemiah and Daniel are not considered "Prophetic Books" in the Tanakh. They were moved to the Prophetic Books by Christians.

The messages of Daniel and Nehemiah are inherently different than the messages of the Tanakh's Prophetic books in terms of structure, message, and meaning.

[SarahM777]

Nehemiah is not considered either a major or minor prophet in Christianity.

These are the ones considered to be the minor prophets

HOSEA, JOEL, AMOS, OBADIAH, JONAH, MICAH, NAHUM,
HABAKKUK, ZEPHANIAH HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI

These are the ones considered to be the major prophets

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, some include Lamentations also.

The message of Nehemiah would be different considering it pertains mostly to the rebuilding of the walls around Jerusalem and is mostly historical as opposed to prophetic.

[Annah]

I mentioned Nehemiah because for the first 400 years, Christian Bishops in Rome tried to add Nehemiah into the Prophetic books

[spacial]

Thank you peky. I was aware of the meaning of apocrypha. I thought I made that clear, but apologise if you didn't pick it up.

I was and am also aware of the Jewish texts, but not part of the discussion we're having here.

I was attempting to raise the point that the Bible emerged as a generally used and applied doucment at the reformation. It's importance before that is minimal other than context. Few, if any had ever read it.

Prior to that, Christianity was, for the most part a contrived set of conveniences.  Designed to instill fear and submission is the populace and justify the control exercised by the rulers. Divine right, forgiveness of sin, sale of indulgences and so on.

The apocrypha emerged as a conspiracy theory, to allow for local modifications. An innovation could be wheeled out, justified by a recently discovered book, seciretly hidden hundreds of yeats ago, to deceive us. (Pope, deceiver, shades of devil!). (You really should look up Robbie Coutrain on this point).

[Annah]

The apocrypha emerged as a conspiracy theory, to allow for local modifications. An innovation could be wheeled out, justified by a recently discovered book, seciretly hidden hundreds of yeats ago, to deceive us. (Pope, deceiver, shades of devil!). (You really should look up Robbie Coutrain on this point).

Not too entirely sure what you mean by the Apocrypha emerged as a conspiracy theory to allow for local modifications.

"Apocrypha" is literally a protestant name for the books. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches regards these books as Deuterocanonical.  Some people say "we shouldn't review these books as biblical....and just throw them out. Some Protestant Churches will even go as far to say they are evil.

These books were added in just a little bit after the council that formed the canon. When you think about it, the Hebrew Bible added books into their canon throughout a thousand years. Just because Martin Luther did not like them doesn't mean they are bad. Martin Luther found the Book of James to be bad too...he wanted that book thrown out all together.

However, there are books that are disregarded by all Christian Schools of thought as canon:

1. The Book of Jubilee
2. The Letter of Aristeas
3. The Book of Adam and Eve                             
4. The Martyrdom of Isaiah

1. 1 Enoch
2. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
3. The Sibylline Oracle
4. The Assumption of Moses
5. 2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch
6. 2 Baruch, or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch
7. 3 Baruch, or the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch

Didatical
   
1. 3 Maccabees
2. 4 Maccabees
3. Pirke Aboth
4. The Story of Ahikar

Poetical
   
1. The Psalms of Solomon
2. Psalm 151

Historical
   
1. The Fragment of a Zadokite Work

[spacial]

Not too entirely sure what you mean by the Apocrypha emerged as a conspiracy theory to allow for local modifications.

"Apocrypha" is literally a protestant name for the books. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches regards these books as Deuterocanonical.  Some people say "we shouldn't review these books as biblical....and just throw them out. Some Protestant Churches will even go as far to say they are evil.

These books were added in just a little bit after the council that formed the canon. When you think about it, the Hebrew Bible added books into their canon throughout a thousand years. Just because Martin Luther did not like them doesn't mean they are bad. Martin Luther found the Book of James to be bad too...he wanted that book thrown out all together.

However, there are books that are disregarded by all Christian Schools of thought as canon:

With respect Annah, that is the point I made.  Though I fully understand that you seem to be having a problem.

[peky]

The Tankah become canon in 100 CE. Also may be of interst to you to know that Nehemiah did not much prophesied but it actually the last one to which G-d directly communicates. After Nehemiah G-d is silent. Nehemiah messages is that "we have Torah to guide us" so to speak

We should remember that the first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians 70 years before Nehemiah, and that the Jews were forced to exile to Babylon for 70 years. It was Cyrus the Great who appointed Nehemiah to rebuilt the Jewish temple.

The Jews coming back after the Babylon exile no longer spoke Hebrew but Aramaic. The 400 years or so sees the Hellenization of the "middle east and north Africa," which results in a religious counter movement by the Jews. The consequence of all this turmoils is the emergence of Rabbinical Judaism -which at the time was revolutionary- and form its most extremes forms - the Essenes- the Nazarites (or early Christians).


So, in my opinion, Spacial is right in noting that while Judaism continued to evolve as a religion, and whose religious books (Tanakah, Talmud, and Midrash) were wildly available to its people) Christianity remained dormant until the renaissance.

[spacial]

I appreciate the recognition peky. As you observe, Judasim is based upon social cohesion  of the group, while Christianity was designed as a means of coercion and control. Apart from sharing some texts, though not their interpretations, there is very little similarity between the two.

Sad that we seem determined here to drift from the original point though. 

Perhaps we've exhausted it?

Late edit, Apologies. I posted 's a means of cohesion', where as I should have written 'as a means of coercion'

Outdone by the spell checker I'm afraid!