Awesome vid! Just one small correction -- The book of Jubilees is not canonical for Coptic Christians, but rather for Ethiopian Orthodox Christians (as well as Ethiopian Jews). Great review!
Very good introduction and I agree with you I have seen so many videos of Protestants bashing the apocrypha 🤔 I'm not Catholic but I think Catholics have a lot to contribute to the conversation so I recently ordered a Catholic Bible and I look forward to reading the extra books.
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon… Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) … …and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books. The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing? If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
I like the “they kept writing..” statement early in the video. Christians have also “kept writing” AND are STILL writing, for 2,000 years since the church was born! Lots of it ranging from the Church Fathers writings, to Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas, to the Reformers all the way to modern writers such as C.S. Lewis just to name a few. Lots of great and helpful stuff to read and instruct our faith, but none of it is considered ‘Scripture’. Same with The Apocrypha. It should be read, but just not taken as Scripture since Jews themselves did not.
I thought this was a surprisingly good video on the Deuterocanonicals by a Protestant. There are however some nit picking points where I disagree. For instance, Church Councils at the end of the 4th century AD included Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, and 1st & 2nd Maccabees in the Canon, but yes, the Council of Trent codified that in the 16th century. Also, deutero does not mean secondary. It simply means second as in second Canon vice proto meaning first Canon. Catholics do not regard the Deuterocanonicals as any less canonical than the remainder of Sacred Scripture. Side note: it was the undivided Church of east and west that determined what would be in the Canon and what would not be. Martin Luther, John Calvin, et alias rejected that authority (though they relegated those books to apocryphal or hidden status in their Bible editions). Nevertheless, even for those Protestants who disagree with the Catholic Church on the Canon, I am so glad that you still encouraged them to read what they call the Apocrypha. Good job! I have an Ave Maria Notetaking Bible whose Deuterocanonicals are filled with notes. There's so much wisdom, history, etc. here. But that all said, if a person can't get what you Protestants call "saved" from reading the Protestant books, then the 7 Catholic books aren't going to help either. PS, I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox were never as definitive about their canon? They accept the 7 Catholic books and even a few extras as you noted. Very curious why the division. I know, I know! The great schism of 1054, but the division started long before then. 😞Very sad that the Body of Christ is divided into Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Not what Jesus wanted at all.
For us Orthodox Christians, our canon (though not formally closed) is established through the ecumenical councils confirming the findings of several local councils. For example, the Quinisext council at Trullo,an appendix to the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, has a canon that recognizes the local synodal canons of Carthage and Laodicea, along with Apostolic Canons as being binding on the entire church. The apostolic canon lists 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees along with the commonly held western Catholic canon along with psalm 151 and the prayer of Manasseh as being the canonical texts of the church.
When you first mentioned interviewing an Apocrypha expert, I was hoping for David deSilva. I enjoy his defense of the Apocrypha's value for Protestants. I'd also be interested in hearing him talk a little more about his work on the NRSV Updated Edition (where he worked on 4 Maccabees and Hebrews), the American Literary Version (the translation used in the Bibliotheca book set), the Common English Bible, and any other translations he's done. (But if you don't have any time for that tangent, I understand.) I think of these books as the Supplementary Canon. They're not a source for doctrine, but they are a set of books that contextualize the inspired books and encourage further reflection upon the themes and motifs of the proper canon. For me, the two key books are 1 Maccabees (for Second Temple history) and Wisdom of Solomon (for Jewish philosophy), with 2 Maccabees and Sirach exploring those ideas even further. The martyrdom scenes in 2 Maccabees are especially effective. As for the other books, Tobit is a lot of fun, as are the expansions to Ezra, Daniel, and Esther. The supplements to Jeremiah are kinda interesting. Judith takes forever to get going, but it has a great payoff. Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 are worth a read every once in a while. 3 Maccabees has killer drunken elephants, so you can't go wrong there. 2 Esdras is nice if you're in the mood for more apocalyptic literature. And 4 Maccabees is . . . well, it's those aforementioned martyrdom stories dragged out to the point of absurdity. (My high school students in Academic Study of the Bible couldn't take it seriously because it was so excessively gory--and because the brothers kept up their defiant attitude even as they were literally being torn apart.)
I think part of the reason the apocrypha was taken out of the KJV and other protestant bibles was simply cost effectiveness. There was this big section that was already sort of controversial so they just took it out to save on shipping costs. Amongst other reasons, for sure. Thank you so much for a nuanced discussion of the apocrypha. It's so rare to hear. I really appreciate the mindset you have toward the bible/biblical writings, even if I don't always agree. One doesn't have to believe something in order to appreciate and study it.
The best English translation of First Maccabees is in the Revised English Bible (1989). The literary value of the text is excellent in that version. "His renown spread to the ends of the earth, and he rallied a people near to destruction."--1 Maccabees 3:9 (REB)
I have at times used passages from different Apocryphal and other 2nd Temple period works as a commentary on concepts and periods of the Old Testament. What are some ways that you have employed that, and what are some times when you find that approach being either beneficial or harmful?
Thank you for sharing. I recall reading my Bible in the early 1990s and being mildly baffled by a reference to Maccabees in a cross reference. I later learnt that it was referring to a portion of the apocrypha, and isn't normally included in "Protestant" Bible's. Now that my personal library has grown, I note that the only copy of Psalm 151 I can find in my library is in a copy of the NRSV that includes the Apocrypha in a section between testaments, but not in a reproduction of the 1611 edition of the KJV that I have. It might not be exactly accurate, but I sometimes think of the apocrypha as corresponding to the bonus features of a DVD, with the additional portions of books such as Esther and Daniel very loosely corresponding to deleted scenes. I've waffled on enough, so again, I say thank you.
Excellent video! I'll have to check out the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha for the articles included in the book. I use Concordia's The Apocrypha, A Lutheran Edition with Notes, which uses the ESV Apocrypha. I read all the Apocrypha in High School in the 1970s, back when I was a Roman Catholic. These days, every year I make a point to read 1st Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Psalm 151, and the Song of the Three Holy Children. I'm going to watch your video with the Scholar of the Apocrypha next. The Hasmonean period and Alexandrian Judaism is a fascinating period in history for me.
I don't actually read the Apocryphal books, but I own them and reference them, sometimes there is a bit of information that helps me understand what isn't getting through my thick head.
I am an Episcopalian who uses Jewish and Roman Catholic Bibles as default translations. I accept the Council of Trent's definition of the Canon as having 73 books. So, for me, the Pseudepigrapha is the Apocrypha. I also own a copy of the Charlesworth set of the Pseudepigrapha and use it to check citations I read in Biblical commentaries.
Super timely for me. have been looking for these exact resources because i didn't want to just order some random version or study guide. After finishing a full bible read through I have been planning on reading the apocryphal books. Then finishing up with first century texts like the didache, Shepard of hermas, and 1 Clement. Thank you so much for these recommendations!
I met a Biblical Professor; he showed me a VERY VERY old bible. he told me it was over 500 years old. I had the honor of looking through it and it had APOCRYPHA in it.
DiscipleDojo says the word Deuterocanonical means 'secondary' as inferior when the word actually means of or constituting a subsequent canon. The fact that Martin Luther's Bible included it speaks volumes. It is canonical and was removed by later Judaising Protestants because it supported Catholic beliefs.
All denominations founded before 1880s were founded with the Apocryphal books in their Bibles!!! I am a Protestant and I have never read the Apocryphal books but there's no crime in reading them. I might read them one day out of curiosity.
Please make a video about Ethiopian Tawahedo Christianity and how Haile Selassie fits the description of the return of Christ and so many lines of scripture point towards him
This is a good question. All Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament contain these books and up to Jerome the Church used the Greek version. Jerome introduced the distinction as he (controversially) decided to translate from the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, coined the term Apocrypha and formed the opinion followed by both Martin Luther and the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion. Luther didn't really alter the canon but he did initiate critical discourse about it, both regarding content and authorship. The New Testament was born in this kind of process of evaluation where some books are clearly canonical some open to dispute or question. The debate ends because it was ended. The canon is like concrete. Malleable until it sets. In any case the Old Testament is already a kind of secondary canon. It's the scriptures of the Jews at the time of the early Church. The Church used it mainly for allegorical and christological purposes then as I guess now. Our Bible is always given to us based on those who went before. Why read some of the obscure OT books? Other than they are useful and good to read and build us up in our faith based on the journey of those who went ahead of us. Among whom, for Christians, are to be be found faithful Jews.
They were part of the Septuagint. The Gospel writers used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. So the books were accepted by the first Christians and were part of their canon and the canon of the entire Church until Martin Luthor. Luthor rejected them but was too scared to completely remove them from the Bible. He kept them in an appendix and they remained so on Protestant Bibles until the late 19th or early 20th century when publishers finally decided to completely remove them to save on costs and increase their profits.
Enjoyed the presentation with Dr. deSilva. Big fan. I've been reading and studying the "Apocrypha" (or as I call them the "Middle Testament" for decades. Enjoying this presentation too. A few historical caveats I would make. The Apocrypha was included in all Protestant Bibles till well after the Reformation. They are in the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Geneva Bible (1560), they are in the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible and of course in the KJV (1611). They are included in all known manuscript Bibles and most of the ancient "versions" include them (LXX, Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, Syriac, etc). The assertion that the "Church Fathers and Medieval theologians never put them on the level of scripture" is extremely hard to substantiate. They are widely cited as scripture. Some Fathers made a technical distinction many did not. The Synod of Hippo clearly recognizes them as canonical in the full sense of the term. After Jerome there was more discussion of what is and is not "canonical" scripture in terms of the "Old Testament." But most non-Protestant branches of Christianity clearly accept these books as canonical so someone certainly placed them on the level of canon. A good resource is Siegfried Meurer (editor), The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective (UBS Monograph Series, No.6) and there are many other sources for non-sectarian discussions of the facts. They are part of the shared inheritance of the church and some had profound influences upon the faith. But I really enjoyed the video. Great job. Read these books.
Good resource intellectually as far as background to the New Testament and knowledge of the Inter Testamental period is concerned.BUT as being Inspired and being a must read for salvation and doctrine I do not think so.
The Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scriptures set has a volume on just the Apocryphal books, with commentary from the church fathers and Concordia Publishing House has published a Lutheran edition with the Apocrypha that contains study notes for just the Apocrypha.
The Catholic Church councils determined the canon of the Bible, and we wouldn’t have the Bible without that. The Bible is a Catholic book. Martin Luther and his followers did not have authority to remove any books from that. I find it entertaining when “Bible only” Protestants don’t recognize books that were removed from the Bible.
@ the risk is publishers and media companies will change them. I have digital movies that they now edit, add in new content and voice overs. One word here and they changed, changes meaning. This is a massive risk. Watch the movie the book of Eli. lol. Good movie, but there is a point.
@DiscipleDojo TH-cam keeps deleting my tag of you in comments. Also it shaded out the “more” section of this video on my app. On a separate platform, I tried publishing an article talking about Jesus and it would not email it to my followers. AI and tech interference is real. Dig deeper…
@DiscipleDojo TH-cam deletes my tag of you. And it blanked out the “more” section of your video. And on another platform, i wrote an article about Jesus and the platform would not email it to my users. AI and tech interference is happening. It is real. Dive deeper.
Apocrypha IS scriptures and words of God. And no i'm not catholic or "christian" or "protestant" I'm a jewish-Nazarene (Nazarene judaism).. the septuagint which has the apocrypha including 1 enoch and jubilees and the New Testament is what we go go by in our ministry. I would say we are closer to the greek orthodox and Coptics or Ethiopia when it comes to the canon. shalom.
@@landondismuke simply check the Dead Sea scroll canon and the septuagint and the Ethiopian canon. simple as that. the so called protestant religion removed books to make 66 when they created their religion,
@Nazarene_Judaism protestantism...isn't a religion. Wildly inappropriate approximation of what protestantism is. We are Christians. Our argument is that the Hebrew Bible(the scripture used by christ) did not include several books and other writings that the septuagint did include. That is not a trivial discrepancy nor was it a novel idea that those writings were extra. You see this as early with Jerome in his Latin vulgate translation like 1100 years before protestantism. In that translation they were not removed but clearly labeled or otherwise shown to have been in the septuagint but not the ORIGINAL Hebrew. There also is literally like 1600 years of discussion and history behind this but again wildly inappropriate approximation on your part.
The Koran also has background information and expands on the story of Genesis with Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar being the father of the muslims.
Taking 1 and 2 Maccabees out of the Bible has a totally devastating effect on hermeneutic, exegesis and proper interpretation of the Book of Revelation. With 1 and 2 Maccabees the Book of Revelation's fourth sea beast would be the Hasmonean Dynasty/Herodian Dynasty/Zealot sedition, but without those two books the fourth Kingdom would be the Roman Empire, an idea that has absolutely no predictive value and has caused all kinds misguided actions, and of harm and massive loss of life in Jewish history.
@@DiscipleDojo Like Jewish Bible include the Synoptics and John? They took the Maccabees out because that era leads directly to Jesus Christ. And then they pretend like _all_ Bible prophecy ended with Malachi 400 years prior!
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon… Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) … …and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books. The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing? If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
I truly appreciate your presentations, but for this one, I'm not sure that everyone understands what the phrase "pseudepigrapha". means. Since the book of Enoch is probably one of the most referred to books for those dealing with the Nephilim and the distinctives between solar and lunar calendars, I hope your "expert" at least sheds some light on this hot topic.
Yes it is Scripture. I didn't care who you are or who you think you are, it certainly is Scripture. The reasons why people don't think so, are rumors as to what's in the apocryphal texts, such as "infancy epistle of Thomas" and book of "Judas". These two books were never at all part of Scripture. Rule of thumb imo, if they are in the Pilgrims Geneva 1560 Bible or KJV 1611 Bible, than they are Scripture.
@@DiscipleDojo They were in the 1611 kjv as well. And the Vatican wants to be the one true religion controlling salvation itself, and they really are the ones "who decided" what was there or not. I think this corruption runs deeper than you might want to admit. But I'm not the only one who holds this opinion either.
Hey brother, The thing is, there are the apocryphal from the catholic bible, from the orthodox bible, dead sea scrolls, etc. Thats too much material. Which ones are the most important to read? Great video👍
@@richardvoogd3012It does not have the same books of the Apocrypha as found in the LXx. It has Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, (1-4) Maccabees, (1,2)Esdras, & Manasseh.
@@SeanRhoadesChristopher I had noticed that there are some differences between what's included in the various printed editions in my personal library. This possibly reflects, at least in part, different traditions.
YOOOOO Brother You know what was interesting when I was in college I heard a Pastor and Professor say that the Apocrypha was wicked and stupid. He said there is a book in there called "Bell and the Dragon" he said so what does a little girl and her Pet Dragon have anything to do with real Scriptures, also he said "The Apocrypha also has Voo Doo in it." I said said to myself Heck No I wont Read that, But a month later, I bought a very old Family Bible and the Apocrypha was in there. I began to read "Bell And The Dragon" and it was Not about a girl and a Dragon at all...... I looked up videos on 15 Reasons why the Apocrypha is wicked and Not Scripture. I found a list of 15 that claimed to PROOVED and EXPOSED the Apocrypha. Then I looked up all of the points and to my surprise they wasn't true.... Wow so many people have said so much against it but when you look up the points and evidence they provide it is just not really true..... I'm still reading it to find out if it is good or not.... See what we find...... If you find a good list with actual proof please send my way...!
@@PastorErickDMarquez Christians, even the Reformers, have always held that the Apochryphal books are edifying reading. People who claim otherwise are simply ignorant of church history.
Non catholics should still have a copy of the Catholic bible . Martin luther removed 7 important books that people should have access to. Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Judith, additions to Daniel, and Esther- It is not only the books of the apocrypha that Protestants are missing.
@@srich7503 they only got removed because publishing companies and printing companies wanted to save money and realize they could cut the apocrypha out and protestants were already used to reading it as a separate section and it not being part of the Old Testament or New Testament so they were able to sell shorter those cheaper Bibles to protestants for the same price this continued with companies starting to sell just the new testament calling at the Bible and a further one on to where it was just the go
Deuter canonical books. Luther renamed them the Apocrypha when he created his own Bible and then eventually got rid of them all together. He also wanted to get rid of James
Yes it’s weird not too. It makes no sense. The only reason there aren’t more holy books in the Bible is many have been lost to time and the other ones we can’t confirm who the authors were and what they’re trying to say someone found a day-to-day planner for Jesus it would be added to the Bible.
I agree with your assessment. While they're not Holy Spirit-inspired scripture (and therefore should not be considered part of the canon), they are interesting books that give historical insight into the mind of intertestamental Judaism, as well as what happened to the Jewish people under the reign and persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in 1 and 2 Maccabees. I would argue that you won't be able to make total sense of scriptures like Daniel 8:9-27, Daniel 11:21-35, John 10:22 or Hebrews 11:35b unless you read 1 and 2 Maccabees, like you pointed out. I read them all last year for the first time and I did enjoy reading them, not only for the wisdom literature (e.g. Wisdom and Sirach), the historical fiction books (e.g. Tobit and Judith, which were both really interesting to read), apocalyptic literature (2 Esdras) and of course the historical books of 1, 2 and even 3 Maccabees (although I've heard 3 Maccabees is more questionable in its history, compared to 1 Maccabees). I also really enjoyed 4 Maccabees, as it gives philosophical and theological insight into the importance of reason and self-control over emotions and feelings and uses philosophy, Old Testament stories and the martyrdom of Eleazar the high priest and the mother and her seven sons under Antiochus to prove his point.
THE MEN WHO TOOK OUT THE ANCIENT BOOKS OUT OF THE BIBLE OR DIDN'T ALLOW THEM IN YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY ARE IN "HELL" FOR OMITTING THEM JUST AS GOD TELLS US IN THE BIBLE AT THE END OF SOME BOOKS. INCLUDING MARTIN LUTHER FOR REMOVING CERTAIN BOOKS SIMPLY BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THEY WERE NOT RELEVANT.
@@DiscipleDojoWell the Book of Revelation says if you add or remove from THIS book ( the was no full bible , and he meant the scroll of the book of revelation). I think Deuteronomy says to not add or remove from the Pentateuch or Torah ( 5 books of "Moses"). The Catholic Church ( The Latin/ Greeks ) Choosed the canon to what it came to be used in the mass/liturgy. Just to clarify, no need to be sentimental, you can show your love for Christ in your Actions.
Ahhh yes, the intertestamentals that most Christians forgot about, this is why I like the Ethiopic Church, their Narrow Canon is akin to our 66 books & their Broader Canon includes the Apocrypha, as well as several other Intertestamentals, adding up to a whopping 18 deuterocanon books, not including all 4 Maccabees in the standard Apocrypha, which would make a whopping 88 books of Canon & Deuterocanon for the faithful to read & study.
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon… Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) … …and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books. The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing? If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
You can not have our current heliocentric solar system model and the apocryphal books co-exist. You can not have pre-trib rapture doctrine and the apocryphal books co-exist. Seek the truth.
What gave king james the idea to remove apocraphal books. Books of Enoch I get the do not jive but all apocrphal books I read do jive with torah and new testimate
Enoch is great! Why was it overlooked/omitted. Enoch walked with God and was taken to Heaven. I would think theologians would want to include Enoch as an example, like Elijah.
@DiscipleDojo Those books are extra biblical jewish writings. The ancient Jews never accepted or recognized them as the devinely inspired word of God, neither were they accepted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles as such. The Apostle Paul refers to them as Jewish fables to be avoided, and the Lord Jesus refers to them as traditions of men, which made the Law and the Prophets, of none effect. You can believe that if you want to, but remember that at least 3 times in the bible, God gives a severe warning to those who dare to add to or subtract from his word. See Deuteronomy 4: 2, 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19; Proverbs 30: 5-6.
Awesome vid! Just one small correction -- The book of Jubilees is not canonical for Coptic Christians, but rather for Ethiopian Orthodox Christians (as well as Ethiopian Jews). Great review!
Ahh, thanks for the correction! I confused the two in my head!
I used to have a old book that was called The Lost Books of the Bible. It only had the apocryphal books in it. I never read it but I inherited it.
Read them, they're a treat to read.
Very good introduction and I agree with you I have seen so many videos of Protestants bashing the apocrypha 🤔 I'm not Catholic but I think Catholics have a lot to contribute to the conversation so I recently ordered a Catholic Bible and I look forward to reading the extra books.
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
I like the “they kept writing..” statement early in the video. Christians have also “kept writing” AND are STILL writing, for 2,000 years since the church was born! Lots of it ranging from the Church Fathers writings, to Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas, to the Reformers all the way to modern writers such as C.S. Lewis just to name a few. Lots of great and helpful stuff to read and instruct our faith, but none of it is considered ‘Scripture’. Same with The Apocrypha. It should be read, but just not taken as Scripture since Jews themselves did not.
Thank you for telling us about the CEB on Biblegateway I've been wanting to read the Apocrypha.
I thought this was a surprisingly good video on the Deuterocanonicals by a Protestant. There are however some nit picking points where I disagree. For instance, Church Councils at the end of the 4th century AD included Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, and 1st & 2nd Maccabees in the Canon, but yes, the Council of Trent codified that in the 16th century. Also, deutero does not mean secondary. It simply means second as in second Canon vice proto meaning first Canon. Catholics do not regard the Deuterocanonicals as any less canonical than the remainder of Sacred Scripture. Side note: it was the undivided Church of east and west that determined what would be in the Canon and what would not be. Martin Luther, John Calvin, et alias rejected that authority (though they relegated those books to apocryphal or hidden status in their Bible editions). Nevertheless, even for those Protestants who disagree with the Catholic Church on the Canon, I am so glad that you still encouraged them to read what they call the Apocrypha. Good job! I have an Ave Maria Notetaking Bible whose Deuterocanonicals are filled with notes. There's so much wisdom, history, etc. here. But that all said, if a person can't get what you Protestants call "saved" from reading the Protestant books, then the 7 Catholic books aren't going to help either. PS, I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox were never as definitive about their canon? They accept the 7 Catholic books and even a few extras as you noted. Very curious why the division. I know, I know! The great schism of 1054, but the division started long before then. 😞Very sad that the Body of Christ is divided into Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Not what Jesus wanted at all.
For us Orthodox Christians, our canon (though not formally closed) is established through the ecumenical councils confirming the findings of several local councils. For example, the Quinisext council at Trullo,an appendix to the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, has a canon that recognizes the local synodal canons of Carthage and Laodicea, along with Apostolic Canons as being binding on the entire church. The apostolic canon lists 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees along with the commonly held western Catholic canon along with psalm 151 and the prayer of Manasseh as being the canonical texts of the church.
That’s a great question! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
When you first mentioned interviewing an Apocrypha expert, I was hoping for David deSilva. I enjoy his defense of the Apocrypha's value for Protestants. I'd also be interested in hearing him talk a little more about his work on the NRSV Updated Edition (where he worked on 4 Maccabees and Hebrews), the American Literary Version (the translation used in the Bibliotheca book set), the Common English Bible, and any other translations he's done. (But if you don't have any time for that tangent, I understand.)
I think of these books as the Supplementary Canon. They're not a source for doctrine, but they are a set of books that contextualize the inspired books and encourage further reflection upon the themes and motifs of the proper canon. For me, the two key books are 1 Maccabees (for Second Temple history) and Wisdom of Solomon (for Jewish philosophy), with 2 Maccabees and Sirach exploring those ideas even further. The martyrdom scenes in 2 Maccabees are especially effective.
As for the other books, Tobit is a lot of fun, as are the expansions to Ezra, Daniel, and Esther. The supplements to Jeremiah are kinda interesting. Judith takes forever to get going, but it has a great payoff. Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 are worth a read every once in a while. 3 Maccabees has killer drunken elephants, so you can't go wrong there. 2 Esdras is nice if you're in the mood for more apocalyptic literature. And 4 Maccabees is . . . well, it's those aforementioned martyrdom stories dragged out to the point of absurdity. (My high school students in Academic Study of the Bible couldn't take it seriously because it was so excessively gory--and because the brothers kept up their defiant attitude even as they were literally being torn apart.)
Where can I see/hear/read his defense of the Apocrypha's Value for Protestants?
@@DrGero15 Search on TH-cam for deSilva Apocrypha, and you should get a number of results.
This is so informative. Thank you so much for putting this out.
I think part of the reason the apocrypha was taken out of the KJV and other protestant bibles was simply cost effectiveness. There was this big section that was already sort of controversial so they just took it out to save on shipping costs. Amongst other reasons, for sure. Thank you so much for a nuanced discussion of the apocrypha. It's so rare to hear. I really appreciate the mindset you have toward the bible/biblical writings, even if I don't always agree. One doesn't have to believe something in order to appreciate and study it.
The best English translation of First Maccabees is in the Revised English Bible (1989). The literary value of the text is excellent in that version. "His renown spread to the ends of the earth, and he rallied a people near to destruction."--1 Maccabees 3:9 (REB)
My question for David is “please explain the history of the Prayer of Manasseh”
I have at times used passages from different Apocryphal and other 2nd Temple period works as a commentary on concepts and periods of the Old Testament. What are some ways that you have employed that, and what are some times when you find that approach being either beneficial or harmful?
Very good presentation thank you
Great video! Just discovered your channel! Good work🤙
Looking forward to the interview with deSilva!
Thank you for sharing. I recall reading my Bible in the early 1990s and being mildly baffled by a reference to Maccabees in a cross reference. I later learnt that it was referring to a portion of the apocrypha, and isn't normally included in "Protestant" Bible's. Now that my personal library has grown, I note that the only copy of Psalm 151 I can find in my library is in a copy of the NRSV that includes the Apocrypha in a section between testaments, but not in a reproduction of the 1611 edition of the KJV that I have. It might not be exactly accurate, but I sometimes think of the apocrypha as corresponding to the bonus features of a DVD, with the additional portions of books such as Esther and Daniel very loosely corresponding to deleted scenes. I've waffled on enough, so again, I say thank you.
That's a pretty good analogy, IMO!
Excellent video! I'll have to check out the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha for the articles included in the book. I use Concordia's The Apocrypha, A Lutheran Edition with Notes, which uses the ESV Apocrypha.
I read all the Apocrypha in High School in the 1970s, back when I was a Roman Catholic. These days, every year I make a point to read 1st Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Psalm 151, and the Song of the Three Holy Children.
I'm going to watch your video with the Scholar of the Apocrypha next. The Hasmonean period and Alexandrian Judaism is a fascinating period in history for me.
Why did you leave Roman Catholicism?
Excited to listen to the interview. Sefaria is another great resource
Good stuff man! Thank you!
In the Catholic bible the Apocrypha has equal weight with the five books of Moses. The Ethiopian Catholic bible also includes the books of Enoch.
I don't actually read the Apocryphal books, but I own them and reference them, sometimes there is a bit of information that helps me understand what isn't getting through my thick head.
I am an Episcopalian who uses Jewish and Roman Catholic Bibles as default translations. I accept the Council of Trent's definition of the Canon as having 73 books. So, for me, the Pseudepigrapha is the Apocrypha. I also own a copy of the Charlesworth set of the Pseudepigrapha and use it to check citations I read in Biblical commentaries.
Fantastic video. Very impressed.
Super timely for me. have been looking for these exact resources because i didn't want to just order some random version or study guide.
After finishing a full bible read through I have been planning on reading the apocryphal books. Then finishing up with first century texts like the didache, Shepard of hermas, and 1 Clement.
Thank you so much for these recommendations!
I've really appreciated your videos, but I'm a simple man - I see Usagi Yojimbo, I subscribe.
Thank you, JM🌹🌹🌹🌹
I met a Biblical Professor; he showed me a VERY VERY old bible. he told me it was over 500 years old. I had the honor of looking through it and it had APOCRYPHA in it.
Where can I find a solid list of which book of the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that each of the branches of Christianity use and/or appendix?
The Oxford Annotated and New Interpreters Bible have lists like that, as does the CEB Study Bible in this video.
Great video. I really enjoyed it.💜❤️
Great video I really enjoyed it
DiscipleDojo says the word Deuterocanonical means 'secondary' as inferior when the word actually means of or constituting a subsequent canon. The fact that Martin Luther's Bible included it speaks volumes. It is canonical and was removed by later Judaising Protestants because it supported Catholic beliefs.
Deutero literally means "second." Everything else you wrote is opinion.
All denominations founded before 1880s were founded with the Apocryphal books in their Bibles!!!
I am a Protestant and I have never read the Apocryphal books but there's no crime in reading them. I might read them one day out of curiosity.
Excellent education!
A good explanation of the apocrypha.
Please make a video about Ethiopian Tawahedo Christianity and how Haile Selassie fits the description of the return of Christ and so many lines of scripture point towards him
@@DanWaterGypsy that would be a short video. Just one word, actually: "Nonsense."
@@DiscipleDojo beyond your comprehension
@@DiscipleDojoquick to dismiss with no factual basis. He’s spot on! Seek and ye shall find.
@@DanWaterGypsy💯
💯
Question for Dr. deSilva: when did the Christian church begin to see the Apocrypha as inspired?
This is a good question. All Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament contain these books and up to Jerome the Church used the Greek version.
Jerome introduced the distinction as he (controversially) decided to translate from the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, coined the term Apocrypha and formed the opinion followed by both Martin Luther and the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion.
Luther didn't really alter the canon but he did initiate critical discourse about it, both regarding content and authorship.
The New Testament was born in this kind of process of evaluation where some books are clearly canonical some open to dispute or question.
The debate ends because it was ended. The canon is like concrete. Malleable until it sets.
In any case the Old Testament is already a kind of secondary canon. It's the scriptures of the Jews at the time of the early Church. The Church used it mainly for allegorical and christological purposes then as I guess now.
Our Bible is always given to us based on those who went before. Why read some of the obscure OT books? Other than they are useful and good to read and build us up in our faith based on the journey of those who went ahead of us. Among whom, for Christians, are to be be found faithful Jews.
They were part of the Septuagint. The Gospel writers used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. So the books were accepted by the first Christians and were part of their canon and the canon of the entire Church until Martin Luthor. Luthor rejected them but was too scared to completely remove them from the Bible. He kept them in an appendix and they remained so on Protestant Bibles until the late 19th or early 20th century when publishers finally decided to completely remove them to save on costs and increase their profits.
The original 1611 KJV includes the Apocrypha.
Enjoyed the presentation with Dr. deSilva. Big fan. I've been reading and studying the "Apocrypha" (or as I call them the "Middle Testament" for decades. Enjoying this presentation too. A few historical caveats I would make. The Apocrypha was included in all Protestant Bibles till well after the Reformation. They are in the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Geneva Bible (1560), they are in the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible and of course in the KJV (1611). They are included in all known manuscript Bibles and most of the ancient "versions" include them (LXX, Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, Syriac, etc). The assertion that the "Church Fathers and Medieval theologians never put them on the level of scripture" is extremely hard to substantiate. They are widely cited as scripture. Some Fathers made a technical distinction many did not. The Synod of Hippo clearly recognizes them as canonical in the full sense of the term. After Jerome there was more discussion of what is and is not "canonical" scripture in terms of the "Old Testament." But most non-Protestant branches of Christianity clearly accept these books as canonical so someone certainly placed them on the level of canon. A good resource is Siegfried Meurer (editor), The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective (UBS Monograph Series, No.6) and there are many other sources for non-sectarian discussions of the facts. They are part of the shared inheritance of the church and some had profound influences upon the faith. But I really enjoyed the video. Great job. Read these books.
Good resource intellectually as far as background to the New Testament and knowledge of the Inter Testamental period is concerned.BUT as being Inspired and being a must read for salvation and doctrine I do not think so.
Is there commentaries on any apocryphal books?
The Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scriptures set has a volume on just the Apocryphal books, with commentary from the church fathers and Concordia Publishing House has published a Lutheran edition with the Apocrypha that contains study notes for just the Apocrypha.
Yes, in the Hermenia, Yale Anchor Bible, as well as the New Interpreter's Bible all include commentaries on the Apocrypha.
The 54 books of the apocryphal is a great book.
So thankful for Yahuahs precious Son Yahsuha ❤
The Catholic Church councils determined the canon of the Bible, and we wouldn’t have the Bible without that. The Bible is a Catholic book. Martin Luther and his followers did not have authority to remove any books from that. I find it entertaining when “Bible only” Protestants don’t recognize books that were removed from the Bible.
Yes I am reading those apocripha books
Dear brother
You'll have the Apocryphal books in New Interpreters Study Bible & Oxford Annotated Bible (even in new edition).
Yes, I have reviewed both of those here on the channel.
We need to buy and store physical bibles and books. Digital versions are being edited.
@@RobertDePinto edited by who? And how? There are more printed Bibles than any other book on earth. No one can change that.
@ the risk is publishers and media companies will change them. I have digital movies that they now edit, add in new content and voice overs. One word here and they changed, changes meaning. This is a massive risk. Watch the movie the book of Eli. lol. Good movie, but there is a point.
@DiscipleDojo TH-cam keeps deleting my tag of you in comments. Also it shaded out the “more” section of this video on my app. On a separate platform, I tried publishing an article talking about Jesus and it would not email it to my followers. AI and tech interference is real. Dig deeper…
@DiscipleDojo TH-cam deletes my tag of you. And it blanked out the “more” section of your video. And on another platform, i wrote an article about Jesus and the platform would not email it to my users. AI and tech interference is happening. It is real. Dive deeper.
Apocrypha IS scriptures and words of God. And no i'm not catholic or "christian" or "protestant" I'm a jewish-Nazarene (Nazarene judaism).. the septuagint which has the apocrypha including 1 enoch and jubilees and the New Testament is what we go go by in our ministry. I would say we are closer to the greek orthodox and Coptics or Ethiopia when it comes to the canon. shalom.
Not hating but why do you consider it to be scriptures and words of God I’m doing lore research rn and stumbled upon this video haha
@@landondismuke simply check the Dead Sea scroll canon and the septuagint and the Ethiopian canon. simple as that. the so called protestant religion removed books to make 66 when they created their religion,
@Nazarene_Judaism protestantism...isn't a religion. Wildly inappropriate approximation of what protestantism is. We are Christians. Our argument is that the Hebrew Bible(the scripture used by christ) did not include several books and other writings that the septuagint did include. That is not a trivial discrepancy nor was it a novel idea that those writings were extra. You see this as early with Jerome in his Latin vulgate translation like 1100 years before protestantism. In that translation they were not removed but clearly labeled or otherwise shown to have been in the septuagint but not the ORIGINAL Hebrew. There also is literally like 1600 years of discussion and history behind this but again wildly inappropriate approximation on your part.
@@captainnoobface1124 false.
@@captainnoobface1124(the kjv used the Septuagint)
I find it fascinating that people will base what they do off of what people tell them
Literally everyone does that, including you. :-)
@@DiscipleDojo 😂
The Koran also has background information and expands on the story of Genesis with Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar being the father of the muslims.
Thanks again for another very informative video. It is a shame that many christian believers view these books incorrectly.
Thank you!
Why is the book of Enoch not included?
Yes we should read the Apocrypha
Taking 1 and 2 Maccabees out of the Bible has a totally devastating effect on hermeneutic, exegesis and proper interpretation of the Book of Revelation. With 1 and 2 Maccabees the Book of Revelation's fourth sea beast would be the Hasmonean Dynasty/Herodian Dynasty/Zealot sedition, but without those two books the fourth Kingdom would be the Roman Empire, an idea that has absolutely no predictive value and has caused all kinds misguided actions, and of harm and massive loss of life in Jewish history.
If that were the case, Jewish Bibles would include them.
@@DiscipleDojo Like Jewish Bible include the Synoptics and John? They took the Maccabees out because that era leads directly to Jesus Christ. And then they pretend like _all_ Bible prophecy ended with Malachi 400 years prior!
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
I truly appreciate your presentations, but for this one, I'm not sure that everyone understands what the phrase "pseudepigrapha". means. Since the book of Enoch is probably one of the most referred to books for those dealing with the Nephilim and the distinctives between solar and lunar calendars, I hope your "expert" at least sheds some light on this hot topic.
What Books in the Apocrypha where also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Psalm 151 and the Epistle of Jeremiah were all found partially in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
as was Jubilees
I couldn’t agree more
Problem with the gospel of Barnabas, Judas, Mary is there are many anachronisms contained in their writing
@@CineMooretal80 Gospel of Barnabas isn't Apochrypha. It's long after the NT period.
@@DiscipleDojo understood, I didn't know that but gratitude for the clarity! God bless you!
Yes it is Scripture. I didn't care who you are or who you think you are, it certainly is Scripture. The reasons why people don't think so, are rumors as to what's in the apocryphal texts, such as "infancy epistle of Thomas" and book of "Judas". These two books were never at all part of Scripture. Rule of thumb imo, if they are in the Pilgrims Geneva 1560 Bible or KJV 1611 Bible, than they are Scripture.
That's not how canonicity works.
@@DiscipleDojo
They were in the 1611 kjv as well. And the Vatican wants to be the one true religion controlling salvation itself, and they really are the ones "who decided" what was there or not. I think this corruption runs deeper than you might want to admit. But I'm not the only one who holds this opinion either.
Hey brother, The thing is, there are the apocryphal from the catholic bible, from the orthodox bible, dead sea scrolls, etc. Thats too much material. Which ones are the most important to read? Great video👍
I don't think it's too much to read, but I'd say start with DeSilva's intro book and read whichever ones you find most interesting. :-)
@@DiscipleDojo thanks brother
All of them
Speak about Orthodox faith Thanks
My KJV 1611 has it
The copy I have of the 1611 KJV seems to lack Psalm 151 (Or is that "Pfalmes CLI?" 🤔)
@@richardvoogd3012It does not have the same books of the Apocrypha as found in the LXx. It has Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, (1-4) Maccabees, (1,2)Esdras, & Manasseh.
@@SeanRhoadesChristopher I had noticed that there are some differences between what's included in the various printed editions in my personal library. This possibly reflects, at least in part, different traditions.
Yes!
YOOOOO Brother You know what was interesting when I was in college I heard a Pastor and Professor say that the Apocrypha was wicked and stupid. He said there is a book in there called "Bell and the Dragon" he said so what does a little girl and her Pet Dragon have anything to do with real Scriptures, also he said "The Apocrypha also has Voo Doo in it." I said said to myself Heck No I wont Read that, But a month later, I bought a very old Family Bible and the Apocrypha was in there. I began to read "Bell And The Dragon" and it was Not about a girl and a Dragon at all...... I looked up videos on 15 Reasons why the Apocrypha is wicked and Not Scripture. I found a list of 15 that claimed to PROOVED and EXPOSED the Apocrypha. Then I looked up all of the points and to my surprise they wasn't true.... Wow so many people have said so much against it but when you look up the points and evidence they provide it is just not really true..... I'm still reading it to find out if it is good or not.... See what we find...... If you find a good list with actual proof please send my way...!
@@PastorErickDMarquez Christians, even the Reformers, have always held that the Apochryphal books are edifying reading. People who claim otherwise are simply ignorant of church history.
❤
Non catholics should still have a copy of the Catholic bible . Martin luther removed 7 important books that people should have access to.
Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Judith, additions to Daniel, and Esther-
It is not only the books of the apocrypha that Protestants are missing.
He didn't remove them. He printed them in a separate section and said they were useful and good to read.
@@cpnlsn88 correct. They were not removed until the 1800’s luther did not have the guts to remove the them.
@@srich7503 they only got removed because publishing companies and printing companies wanted to save money and realize they could cut the apocrypha out and protestants were already used to reading it as a separate section and it not being part of the Old Testament or New Testament so they were able to sell shorter those cheaper Bibles to protestants for the same price this continued with companies starting to sell just the new testament calling at the Bible and a further one on to where it was just the go
🙏
Deuter canonical books. Luther renamed them the Apocrypha when he created his own Bible and then eventually got rid of them all together. He also wanted to get rid of James
They are referred to as Apochrypha among scholars and non-catholics...so that's the term I use.
Yes it’s weird not too. It makes no sense. The only reason there aren’t more holy books in the Bible is many have been lost to time and the other ones we can’t confirm who the authors were and what they’re trying to say someone found a day-to-day planner for Jesus it would be added to the Bible.
You refer to translations; don't you mean versions?
The short answer-yes you should be reading the “apocrypha”.
I agree with your assessment. While they're not Holy Spirit-inspired scripture (and therefore should not be considered part of the canon), they are interesting books that give historical insight into the mind of intertestamental Judaism, as well as what happened to the Jewish people under the reign and persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in 1 and 2 Maccabees.
I would argue that you won't be able to make total sense of scriptures like Daniel 8:9-27, Daniel 11:21-35, John 10:22 or Hebrews 11:35b unless you read 1 and 2 Maccabees, like you pointed out.
I read them all last year for the first time and I did enjoy reading them, not only for the wisdom literature (e.g. Wisdom and Sirach), the historical fiction books (e.g. Tobit and Judith, which were both really interesting to read), apocalyptic literature (2 Esdras) and of course the historical books of 1, 2 and even 3 Maccabees (although I've heard 3 Maccabees is more questionable in its history, compared to 1 Maccabees). I also really enjoyed 4 Maccabees, as it gives philosophical and theological insight into the importance of reason and self-control over emotions and feelings and uses philosophy, Old Testament stories and the martyrdom of Eleazar the high priest and the mother and her seven sons under Antiochus to prove his point.
THE MEN WHO TOOK OUT THE ANCIENT BOOKS OUT OF THE BIBLE OR DIDN'T ALLOW THEM IN YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY ARE IN "HELL" FOR OMITTING THEM JUST AS GOD TELLS US IN THE BIBLE AT THE END OF SOME BOOKS. INCLUDING MARTIN LUTHER FOR REMOVING CERTAIN BOOKS SIMPLY BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THEY WERE NOT RELEVANT.
Why are you yelling?
@@DiscipleDojoWell the Book of Revelation says if you add or remove from THIS book ( the was no full bible , and he meant the scroll of the book of revelation).
I think Deuteronomy says to not add or remove from the Pentateuch or Torah ( 5 books of "Moses").
The Catholic Church ( The Latin/ Greeks )
Choosed the canon to what it came to be used in the mass/liturgy.
Just to clarify, no need to be sentimental, you can show your love for Christ in your Actions.
Ahhh yes, the intertestamentals that most Christians forgot about, this is why I like the Ethiopic Church, their Narrow Canon is akin to our 66 books & their Broader Canon includes the Apocrypha, as well as several other Intertestamentals, adding up to a whopping 18 deuterocanon books, not including all 4 Maccabees in the standard Apocrypha, which would make a whopping 88 books of Canon & Deuterocanon for the faithful to read & study.
1st Enoch & the Book of Jubilees are both in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church's Broader Canon.
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
You can not have our current heliocentric solar system model and the apocryphal books co-exist. You can not have pre-trib rapture doctrine and the apocryphal books co-exist. Seek the truth.
Yeah i can see why Ps 151 isn’t legitimate…it just…screams fabrication compared to the rest of psalms.
Kjv is the most censored bible in existence
@@ronsirman6867 that's silly. It's public domain.
@DiscipleDojo kjv has the smallest collection of biblical books and king james happened 500 years ago all older bibles have far more to them
@@DiscipleDojo explain why?
What gave king james the idea to remove apocraphal books. Books of Enoch I get the do not jive but all apocrphal books I read do jive with torah and new testimate
I'm surprised king james didn't cut the entire old testament
Enoch is great! Why was it overlooked/omitted. Enoch walked with God and was taken to Heaven. I would think theologians would want to include Enoch as an example, like Elijah.
More academic!
Read but do not interpret or make doctrine from the Apocrypha. Many conflicts, lack of interaction to other scriptures. Not inspired works.
If it’s not in the bible, it shouldn’t be included in your faith END OF ‼️
That statement itself is not in the Bible...so... 🤷
Those books were never a part of Biblical Christianity period.
That's not true.
@@DiscipleDojo yes it is.
no it isn't.
@DiscipleDojo Those books are extra biblical jewish writings. The ancient Jews never accepted or recognized them as the devinely inspired word of God, neither were they accepted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles as such. The Apostle Paul refers to them as Jewish fables to be avoided, and the Lord Jesus refers to them as traditions of men, which made the Law and the Prophets, of none effect. You can believe that if you want to, but remember that at least 3 times in the bible, God gives a severe warning to those who dare to add to or subtract from his word.
See Deuteronomy 4: 2, 12:32;
Revelation 22:18-19;
Proverbs 30: 5-6.
@@shirlenefarrar1404 there were a number of councils