Did Paul exhort Christians to study the Apocrypha?

[unworthyservant]

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964.

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

 

[Live2believe]

2 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964.

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

 

Here is a good answer: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P50/pauls-attitude-toward-the-septuagint

[unworthyservant]

5 minutes ago, Live2believe said:

Here is a good answer: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P50/pauls-attitude-toward-the-septuagint

I read the article. Some interesting points. Personally, I was more impressed with the way the questioner laid out his case than the answer from the host. The questioner posed very valid points in a concise manner while the answer was somewhat rambling. The reply included a quote from the first century historian, Josephus that was sort of cryptic in spots and didn't even cover the question. The reply also says "when the Jewish canon was later officially ratified, the number of books was 22, suggesting that in the first century a sort of unofficial, de facto Hebrew canon already existed". That doesn't make much sense. How could the ratification of the canon circa 200CE in any suggest what the 1st century Jewish sects were reading? We know for a fact that all the sects but possibly the Saducees were reading the books of the Apocrypha. The only reason there's doubt about the Saducees seems to be another Josephus cryptic passage (I have read it and am not convinced that it says that the Saducees only believed that the Torah was sacred scripture). The reply stated emphatically that after the prophetic line "failed" (not the word I would use) that all histories written after that, "however accurate, do not possess the authority of the earlier books". That's his opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of 1st Century Jews or Christians. I saw nowhere in the entire discussion where anyone addressed the idea that, as a Pharisee, when Paul says "all" one could could reasonably expect that to include the Apocrypha. As there was some debate even this early in the church about certain of those books at the time, it kinda sounds like Paul wanted to make clear that all scripture was sacred including the Apocrypha.

[timf]

A rabbi once told me that the Old Testament (Tanakh) was canonized by 444BC. Here is a site that uses a 424BC date.

https://christiandataresources.com/bd43-02_canonofscripture.htm

The New Testament Apocrypha can have things that are strange. A letter like that of Clement to those in Corinth can sound biblical as would a letter from one Christian brother to another. That we shouldn't take it as gospel might be seen when he mentions the Phoenix rising in Egypt.

While those at the time of Jesus may have been familiar with apocryphal writings, that does not mean they accepted them as scripture.

[unworthyservant]

Just to add a note, Jude quoted the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Jude 1:14-16. "14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."

[Edward429451]

On 4/4/2025 at 6:20 PM, unworthyservant said:

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha?

While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964.

So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

 

Scripture quotes from the book of Enoch, and if I remember right, it also quotes from Jubilees?

I have the book of Enock and Jubilees on E-books. I also have the Gospel of Thomas, and that's real good. It's simply a collection of things that Jesus said. I like it. 

[unworthyservant]

1 hour ago, Edward429451 said:

I also have the Gospel of Thomas, and that's real good.

I tried reading the Gospel of Thomas once. I found it way too rambling for my taste. All I know is that from what I've read about the apocryphal Gospels, none of them contain any teachings of Christ during His ministry that are not already covered in the ones in the New Testament. They put a slightly nuanced spin on the ones we already know but they contain no new ones. That said, I don't feel the need to read them in their entirety. Of course this discussion is about Old Testament apocrypha and whether Paul was calling them scripture and extorting Timothy to study them.

[farouk]

3 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

Just to add a note, Jude quoted the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Jude 1:14-16. "14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."

Until the 19th century, the King James was usually printed with the Apocrypha. But of course the books are not canonical.

[Anne2]

On 4/4/2025 at 6:13 PM, unworthyservant said:

I read the article. Some interesting points. Personally, I was more impressed with the way the questioner laid out his case than the answer from the host. The questioner posed very valid points in a concise manner while the answer was somewhat rambling. The reply included a quote from the first century historian, Josephus that was sort of cryptic in spots and didn't even cover the question. The reply also says "when the Jewish canon was later officially ratified, the number of books was 22, suggesting that in the first century a sort of unofficial, de facto Hebrew canon already existed". That doesn't make much sense. How could the ratification of the canon circa 200CE in any suggest what the 1st century Jewish sects were reading? We know for a fact that all the sects but possibly the Saducees were reading the books of the Apocrypha. The only reason there's doubt about the Saducees seems to be another Josephus cryptic passage (I have read it and am not convinced that it says that the Saducees only believed that the Torah was sacred scripture). The reply stated emphatically that after the prophetic line "failed" (not the word I would use) that all histories written after that, "however accurate, do not possess the authority of the earlier books". That's his opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of 1st Century Jews or Christians. I saw nowhere in the entire discussion where anyone addressed the idea that, as a Pharisee, when Paul says "all" one could could reasonably expect that to include the Apocrypha. As there was some debate even this early in the church about certain of those books at the time, it kinda sounds like Paul wanted to make clear that all scripture was sacred including the Apocrypha.

Just an interesting tid bit. The Sadducees and Pharisees had a dispute over the festal calendar.

When did the count to Pentecost begin?

Lev 23:10  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
11  And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
12  And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

16  Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
 

 

The Sadducees said the first sabbath that fell during the week/7days of unleavened bread.

Therefore every week during the weeks began on a Sunday. The Essenes also had these weeks to begin on a Sunday

The Pharisees said it was a festival sabbath by date in the year the 15th, the first day of unleavened bread. 

Therefore the weeks/sabbaths by date could begin any day of the week.

Ironically the Pharisees pointed to the Greek to support their interpretation.

Instead of seven Sabbaths, the Greek has epta (7) ebdomadas (weeks)

So the Pharisees did not always deny the Greek scriptures

Edited April 8 by Anne2

[ayin jade]

6 hours ago, Edward429451 said:

Scripture quotes from the book of Enoch, and if I remember right, it also quotes from Jubilees?

I have the book of Enock and Jubilees on E-books. I also have the Gospel of Thomas, and that's real good. It's simply a collection of things that Jesus said. I like it. 

I read the gospel of thomas and found it to be pretty bad. It claims that Jesus told the disciples that women had to become men to get saved. 

Quote

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The bible tells us this

Quote

Galatians 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

If there is a contradiction to the bible, it isnt worth reading.