Should we read the Apocryphal books??

What are the Apocryphal (or ‘Deutero-Canonical’) books? Where did they come from? Why aren’t they in every Bible?
Even if one is not Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Slavonic, or Coptic, it is still important to read and understand the world of 2nd Temple Judaism…because it was the world into which the Gospel was first proclaimed! The Apocrypha is incredibly insightful, but it can be intimidating to those who were not raised with these books in their Bibles!
In this episode, JM takes a look at a couple of resources that will help anyone who is looking to better understand these ancient literary works and why they should be read today.
Resources mentioned:
* Lexham Old Testament Apocrypha - tinyurl.com/mr3emtsm
* Introducing the Apocrypha - tinyurl.com/2mk3kxdv
* The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha - tinyurl.com/2j3hjdtd
Video reviews mentioned:
* The Oxford Jewish Study Bible review - • Jewish Study Bible...r...
* The CEB Study Bible review - • CEB Study Bible - An H...
***If you like the shirt JM is wearing in this video, check out our Disciple Dojo online store and get one for yourself or a fellow Hebrew Bible nerd! - tinyurl.com/24ncuas2
------ Go deeper at www.discipledojo.org
Subscribe to the Disciple Dojo podcast for more in-depth teaching and discussions:
SoundCloud - / discipledojo
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/26BDZz7...
iTunes - itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/d...
Stitcher - www.stitcher.com/s?fid=181458&...
Amazon - tinyurl.com/uz8dbfet
Disciple Dojo is a 501c3 Nonprofit organization. As such we rely on donor support to make this teaching available freely online. Please consider supporting this ministry if you benefit from our free resources at www.discipledojo.org/donate

[@jjjjj1780]

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!

[@DiscipleDojo]

Ahh, thanks for the correction! I confused the two in my head!

[@gtgodbear6320]

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.

[@monicaaleixo5378]

This is so informative. Thank you so much for putting this out.

[@michaelhenderson6786]

That’s a great question! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[@romainecrawford2720]

Good stuff man! Thank you!

[@megalyon]

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.

[@HillbillyBlack]

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.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

Fantastic video. Very impressed.

[@Trekkifulshay]

Thank you for telling us about the CEB on Biblegateway I've been wanting to read the Apocrypha.

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, JM🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@robertjola]

Great video I really enjoyed it

[@ChristcentredNaturalgee]

Great video. I really enjoyed it.💜❤️

[@justanotherdaddd]

Excellent education!

[@homescholed]

Excited to listen to the interview. Sefaria is another great resource

[@rodrigocostamoura]

Looking forward to the interview with deSilva!

[@MAMoreno]

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.)

[@DrGero15]

Where can I see/hear/read his defense of the Apocrypha's Value for Protestants?

[@MAMoreno]

@@DrGero15 Search on KZbin for deSilva Apocrypha, and you should get a number of results.

[@joestfrancois]

A good explanation of the apocrypha.

[@Glittersp]

Thank you!

[@AmericanShia786]

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.

[@TruLuan]

Why did you leave Roman Catholicism?

[@carlknaack1019]

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?

[@BrianLassek]

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!

[@iprimap]

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.

[@justin_messer]

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.

[@dvancebum]

My question for David is “please explain the history of the Prayer of Manasseh”

[@mrford116]

I've really appreciated your videos, but I'm a simple man - I see Usagi Yojimbo, I subscribe.

[@BlessedFigTree]

Yes!

[@alouie001]

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.

[@ArleneAdkinsZell]

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.

[@EricStaley-pn3nw]

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?

[@DiscipleDojo]

The Oxford Annotated and New Interpreters Bible have lists like that, as does the CEB Study Bible in this video.

[@BrownEyedSoulMan]

Is there commentaries on any apocryphal books?

[@eclipsesonic]

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.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Yes, in the Hermenia, Yale Anchor Bible, as well as the New Interpreter's Bible all include commentaries on the Apocrypha.

[@escapingdeception5799]

I couldn’t agree more

[@wilmath-xc9kl]

The 54 books of the apocryphal is a great book.

[@richardvoogd3012]

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.

[@DiscipleDojo]

That's a pretty good analogy, IMO!

[@wenceslausraymond4521]

Dear brother You'll have the Apocryphal books in New Interpreters Study Bible & Oxford Annotated Bible (even in new edition).

[@DiscipleDojo]

Yes, I have reviewed both of those here on the channel.

[@valdotc8559]

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👍

[@DiscipleDojo]

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. :-)

[@valdotc8559]

@@DiscipleDojo thanks brother

[@kirtusstruthers3175]

❤

[@MouseCheese2010]

Question for Dr. deSilva: when did the Christian church begin to see the Apocrypha as inspired?

[@cpnlsn88]

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.

[@22grena]

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.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Deutero literally means "second." Everything else you wrote is opinion.

[@BeithamikdashhariSon]

I find it fascinating that people will base what they do off of what people tell them

[@DiscipleDojo]

Literally everyone does that, including you. :-)

[@BeithamikdashhariSon]

@@DiscipleDojo 😂

[@wereldatlas]

Why is the book of Enoch not included?

[@HillbillyBlack]

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.

[@commonweakness9060]

Thanks again for another very informative video. It is a shame that many christian believers view these books incorrectly.

[@bobbyvalentine9108]

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.

[@DorothyDanso-lt2ez]

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.

[@abc123fhdi]

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.

[@Nazarene_Judaism]

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]

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

[@Nazarene_Judaism]

@@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,

[@captainnoobface1124]

​@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.

[@Nazarene_Judaism]

@@captainnoobface1124 false.

[@jacobshepard654]

@@captainnoobface1124(the kjv used the Septuagint)

[@eclipsesonic]

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.

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

What Books in the Apocrypha where also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[@eclipsesonic]

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Psalm 151 and the Epistle of Jeremiah were all found partially in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@DiscipleDojo]

as was Jubilees

[@soapboxearth2]

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.

[@cpnlsn88]

He didn't remove them. He printed them in a separate section and said they were useful and good to read.

[@srich7503]

@@cpnlsn88 correct. They were not removed until the 1800’s luther did not have the guts to remove the them.

[@user-zk6rp4cc3h]

You refer to translations; don't you mean versions?

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

My KJV 1611 has it

[@richardvoogd3012]

The copy I have of the 1611 KJV seems to lack Psalm 151 (Or is that "Pfalmes CLI?" 🤔)

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

@@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.

[@richv7089]

@@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.

[@lanbaode]

The original 1611 KJV includes the Apocrypha.

[@ronriaj]

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.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Why are you yelling?

[@agrikantus9422]

​@@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.

[@reeferfranklin]

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.

[@reeferfranklin]

1st Enoch & the Book of Jubilees are both in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church's Broader Canon.

[@Defender_of_Faith]

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

[@DiscipleDojo]

They are referred to as Apochrypha among scholars and non-catholics...so that's the term I use.

[@danabolick5154]

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.

[@Openreality]

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]

That's not how canonicity works.

[@Openreality]

​​@@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.

[@markmountjoy3636]

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]

If that were the case, Jewish Bibles would include them.

[@markmountjoy3636]

@@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!

[@HillbillyBlack]

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.

[@kennethprather9633]

Read but do not interpret or make doctrine from the Apocrypha. Many conflicts, lack of interaction to other scriptures. Not inspired works.

[@chancylvania]

Yeah i can see why Ps 151 isn’t legitimate…it just…screams fabrication compared to the rest of psalms.

[@Crossword131]

More academic!

[@2005gurka]

If it’s not in the bible, it shouldn’t be included in your faith END OF ‼️

[@DiscipleDojo]

That statement itself is not in the Bible...so... 🤷

[@shirlenefarrar1404]

Those books were never a part of Biblical Christianity period.

[@DiscipleDojo]

That's not true.

[@shirlenefarrar1404]

@@DiscipleDojo yes it is.

[@DiscipleDojo]

no it isn't.

[@shirlenefarrar1404]

@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.

[@cpnlsn88]

@@shirlenefarrar1404 there were a number of councils