Greetings in Jesus Christ's name,
I was wondering if I could get some help on the Apocrypha. Last week I got into a debate with someone who believed the Apocrypha is God's inspired Word, which I believe its not. I am not the most well versed when it comes down to it. I have read through the Apocrypha once or twice and noted such things as Alms being an atonement for sin (Which it is not) along with a line in the Book of Wisdom talking about coming into a body undefiled (sinless) and the fact that none of the authors claim divine inspiration. Along with the additions to the Book of Daniel which just makes me think of Revelation and adding to the Word.

His defense for it was that Hebrews 11:35 refers to something in II Maccabees and he also sighted something in Timothy, I don't know what i did with the paper I have the references down on and I apologize for that. He also talked about the apocrpyha being included in the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other places of that sort.

Mainly I was wondering if someone could help by either if you've studied it point me in the direction of sites and or books I can read up on it, or if you have the time give me an explanation yourself with references.

I believe that God keeps his word and if it was meant to be in the Bible it would be in all Bibles in some shape or form (As in their would just be many translations) Any information at all would be appreciated.

May the Lord Jesus bless you,
-Timothy

[scott]

Hello, tkg....I'm not well versed in this area, so maybe others can help you further, but I was taught that the Apocrypha was in the 1611 KJV [and in earlier editions of the Bible] and remained there until 1629....the Puritans demanded they be taken out because they could not be found in any Hebrew manuscripts [so they couldn't be reliable] and also because they weren't historically accurate in some places; certainly the latter disqualifies them from being part of the canon....I know that Goodspeed has a lot of information in his Preface to the Apocrypha which he translated......God bless.....Scott

[Here Am I]

The Apocrypha was in the 1611 AV, but set between the OT and NT. It was not there as canon, but for additional reading.

Brother Gipp explains it well:

QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was
accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

http://biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answe...answer_34.html

Originally Posted by Here Am I

The Apocrypha was in the 1611 AV, but set between the OT and NT. It was not there as canon, but for additional reading.

Brother Gipp explains it well:

QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was
accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

http://biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answe...answer_34.html

Thank you very much for the answer Here am I, you too Scott. If anyone has any specific examples or references or further comments all would be greatly appreciated. You've given me a direction in which things to look up instead of shooting in the dark. Which is nice because that is more or less what I was doing when I was trying to research this.

-Timothy

Here is something else that might be helpful.
http://web.archive.org/web/200112161...apocrypha.html
Its an old article, but I hope it will be of some use.

[Traditional Anglican]

Here I Am hit it spot on. The main value of the Apocrypha is that is an interesting "historical" anthology between the OT and NT. I feel it is worthwhile for Christians to read as long as it is taken in context:That being, it is not God-Breathed Doctrine. If one keeps that in mind, there are some interesting things in there, some good examples of classic Hebrew writing styles, examples of what today we call "Morality Tales". As long as one is rooted and grounded in the 66 books that make up the Holy Bible I feel it a Christian should read it at least once. My 2 cents. Blessings.