Just wondering. I've read most of it. Interesting stuff. One of my bibles has it included. To quote one website:
Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical. The answer becomes obvious when we learn the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church which stand or fall by these Apocrypha writings alone. Their inclusion has nothing to do with historicity or truth, nor with evidence derived from higher learning or the careful study of the pertinent facts. It has everything to do with the will of men in justifying their 'Church traditions.' If they were God inspired text, they would have been among the Hebrew texts used by God's Chosen People.
I'm all for reading Christian theology books of all kinds and I make my own conclusions. I was just wondering if there was anyone here who have read the apocrypha because I enjoyed reading it.
Anyone?
Steve
__________________
Lamentation 3:24 The Lord is all I have, and so in him I put my hope.
Yeah, I've read them. Actually they're quite good. I can talk about that later. I'd just like to point out that whatever website you quoted is extremely biased in its view of "history." It's also quite incorrect.
The only people who say that "the apocrypha never was considered canonical" are people who seek to ignore the truth of historical fact, which is that the apocrypha was indeed a part of the canon until the Protestants sought to eliminate it during the Reformation.
Just as an example, one of my favorite Apocryphal books is 2nd Esdras, a prophetic book containing three sections, two written by early Christians, and one written by first-century Jews. The book of 2nd Esdras isn't contained in most Bibles today, but at the time of its writing it greatly influenced the early Church. It was possibly even as influential as some of the letters of "Paul" on early Christian theology. To say that the Roman Catholic church invented this book's canonicity is ridiculous.
Most of the other books contained in the Apocrypha are much older. The "additions" to Esther are very old indeed. The Septuagint, which is the oldest existing manuscript of the Old Testament, contains the "additions" to Esther, which are considered apocryphal by Protestants. Why? Because most Protestant Old Testaments are translated from a newer Hebrew manuscript.
So what I'm saying is the "additions" to Esther are actually a part of an older source than the "canonical" Esther we use today- despite the fact that the above website claims the apocrypha was added later by Catholics, or something. But for crying out loud, the Septuagint is the version of the Old Testament that was in use in Jesus' time!!!!
It's true. Read any scholarly notes on the Pauline letters, and they'll tell you Paul's quotes of the Old Testament come almost exclusively from the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Why is that so important???
Because the Septuagint contains many of the very books considered "non-canonical" by the above website, and the Septuagint is most likely the version of the OT that people in Jesus' time used! How can they say that the Roman Catholics manipulated history in order to make the Apocrypha seem canonical? That's ridiculous! The authors of that site are most likely conservative Evangelical Protestants-- a faction that is less than 400 or 500 years old, compared to the Roman Catholic church's near-two-thousand-year history. Whom do we believe is really manipulating history- the church that was actually there at the time, or the church that appeared later and didn't like what happened in the history of the other church? Most likely it's the newbies attempting to legitimize their own views on the Bible. It's the pot calling the kettle black- and not very convincingly.
/rant
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
Believe it or not, Steve, but these books that you are reading were so hard to understand by the Protestant Reformers that Martin Luther himself got so upset trying to figure out on of these books that he just gave up trying to understand them and threw his copy into the Rhine river!
As for me, I just like to keep to the regular Protestant bible...THAT ALONE is enough of a challenge for me to study!
A few of the Apocryphal books are pretty easy to read now that there are some decent translations out there. I can understand where you're coming from now, but if you're ever interested in reading the Ap., the Harper-Collins Study Bible is the NRSV, which is super easy to read, and the notes are written by faithful scholars who really know their ****. Some of my favorite spiritual writings are in the Apocrypha. Some of it's crap, but some of it's really uplifting. Anyway, plug #2
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
I'd just like to point out that whatever website you quoted is extremely biased in its view of "history." It's also quite incorrect.
Oh, I agree. I was merely illustrating how certain groups like to take their views beliefs and pass them off as official.
Chris wrote:
Just as an example, one of my favorite Apocryphal books is 2nd Esdras, a prophetic book containing three sections, two written by early Christians, and one written by first-century Jews. The book of 2nd Esdras isn't contained in most Bibles today, but at the time of its writing it greatly influenced the early Church.
Interesting you should mention 2nd Esdras because that's my favorite one too! I was just thinking of rereading it today!
Steve
__________________
Lamentation 3:24 The Lord is all I have, and so in him I put my hope.
You should! It can be very funny, dramatic, profound, sad, wise, faithful, beautiful, hopeful-- it's very like the Bible itself. Even if you don't believe it's "inspired," you can find inspiration from it.
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
You should! It can be very funny, dramatic, profound, sad, wise, faithful, beautiful, hopeful-- it's very like the Bible itself. Even if you don't believe it's "inspired," you can find inspiration from it.
You are "inspired"...to the utmost level of maximum "goofiness"!
Here-here!!!!
__________________
Be yourself!!! Don't try to fit into someone else's mold, you won't fit!!! And that just leads to utter misery!!! Live life to it's fullest in Christ's love every day!!!
Be yourself!!! Don't try to fit into someone else's mold, you won't fit!!! And that just leads to utter misery!!! Live life to it's fullest in Christ's love every day!!!
I believe that we have drug the psycology game over here.
I haven't read the apocrypha yet, plan on it, one of these days.
__________________
Be yourself!!! Don't try to fit into someone else's mold, you won't fit!!! And that just leads to utter misery!!! Live life to it's fullest in Christ's love every day!!!
For anyone who is interested in reading the apocrypha, I'd suggest you NOT begin by reading the following: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus(Sirach), 1 Maccabees. These three are very long, and very boring. There's a lot of good information/thought in them, but if you read them first, the whole Apocrypha could seem rather daunting.
If I were to recommend books with which to begin, I'd suggest one of these: 2 Esdras, Judith, Susanna, Tobit, Esther with additions, 2 Maccabees (it's essentially the same as 1 Macc but more interesting). These are extremely interesting, faithful stories/histories/prophecies that are really good ways to get into the Apocrypha.
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."