The Apocrypha and the Early Church- David Bercot - Ep. 066

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

This video really made me think. Not sure I can take the same position as David Bercot, but this really challenged my thinking. Thank you for posting!

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for the feedback, Stephen. Regardless of the conclusion at which you arrive, we’re glad if this has spurred your thinking.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Anabaptist Perspectives, thanks! I have had David Bercot’s Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs for years. Wonderful to finally put a face to the book! Very sensible man! Blessings

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

We have a counterpoint video where Stephen Russell explains why he does not view the Apocrypha as canonical. kzbin.info/www/bejne/imPFmZ2urpWFf80

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives awesome thanks!

[@seansimpson1133]

Is this the same guy who made the videos over the Septuagint?

[@matthewhoffman9221]

David Bercot is one of the hidden gems in the world. His research was one of the catalysts that opened my mind to the truth. Thoughtful, faithful and very reverent of the Word of God. This is a great channel. You are doing it right.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thanks, Matthew! We appreciate your encouraging note.

[@rgalunas]

me too

[@NathanH83]

Hey Matthew, my last name is Hoffman too. Where you from?

[@matthewhoffman9221]

@@NathanH83 originally from Ohio. Living in Glasgow Ky now. Where are you located?

[@NathanH83]

@@matthewhoffman9221 Illinois

[@ricardomescouto6954]

Early church believed not only that the "Apocripha" are inspired, but in Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presenece in Eucharistia, Communion of Saints ( Intercession of Saints), Sacraments....

[@Foxty36]

Amen ❤

[@DelmyTreeCutter]

Episode number 66. The number of books when the apocrypha is removed. What a coinscidence

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Interesting observation. That was indeed a coincidence :-)

[@rintakahashi2448]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives There is no such thing as a coincidence, even if you didn't plan it

[@ReluctantPost]

@@rintakahashi2448 Ecclesiastes 9:11

[@dooglitas]

I don't get your point.

[@Foxty36]

I read David Bercot's "Kingdom that turned the world upside down" and realized I was not really a Christian. I was then Baptized and began walking in the way with my wife, who began dressing modestly and covering her head. We read the Septuagint as well because we also study the early Christian writings. Last year we thought we finally had found fellowship in Canada after 11 years being alone, and moved 1400kms to be part of a conservative anabaptist remnant church (charity movement). After one year they gave me an ultimatum that we had to stop reading the ECW and the Septuagint and then asked us to leave.

[@bobbyvalentine9108]

Tertullian certainly thought 1 Enoch was canonical and to this day it is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

[@bgkob]

Yeah... Book of Jude, 2 Peter, and other books reference Enoch directly or indirectly. It was obviously being read and was well known.

[@dooglitas]

The problem with the canonicity of Enoch is that there are very few manuscripts of the book. Many are not even complete. There are places where the text is obviously corrupted from what the original probably was. Also, the fact that Enoch is claimed to be the author is problematic. I don't believe any scholar believes 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch. Most believe it is probably dated to some time between Malachi and the birth of Christ. If Enoch is not the actual author, this would put the book in the category of pseudipigrapha (false writings).

[@HarmonicWave]

​@@dooglitas "Scholars" don't know everything and they often just cite other scholars or theologians.

[@dooglitas]

@@HarmonicWave There is some truth to what you say, but scholars generally know a lot more than the average person. Do you have any actual facts to refute what I said?

[@excapeplan1282]

Thank you!

[@fraternallove4370]

Thank you

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

You're welcome.

[@walkingonwater1967]

I have one very important question no one is speaking on. how does one learn what is inspired scripture.... 2 Timothy 2:15

[@walkingonwater1967]

well done

[@Sam-fp8zm]

very good. zech 14 was fulfilled in maccabees

[@johntobey1558]

Where is Amberson, Pa?

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

South central Pennsylvania, near the Turnpike.

[@Th3Pr0digalS0n]

If you are reading what is written in the apocrypha, and understanding. It has to change your walk. The firmament, Sheol, the watchers, so much of what is taught by mainstream christianity is wrong.

[@ToOpen6seven]

No it is not, what is wrong is you believing the false stuff found in the apocrypha and not comparing it to make sure it is in the Holy Bible (KJV).

[@Th3Pr0digalS0n]

@@ToOpen6seven you realize the KJV is not the perfect word of God right. even the translators of it admit that the Septuagint LXX is a better version because the apostles and Jesus used it. The KJV was just a copy of the Geneva and Tyndale bibles. basically plagiarism. it is a good version, but far from the perfect word of God.

[@candyclews4047]

@@ToOpen6seven The label 'false stuff' that you use was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century who had to get rid of the apocrypha because it largely underpinned Catholic teachings and they couldn't have that. They needed to invent a 'new religion' to get people to follow their cause. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory, the intercession of angels in Tobit 12:12 and the role of good works in Tobit 12:12 and Sirach 3:30). The KJV first appeared 1,611 years after Christ and 1,229 years after the first Bible was put together. I wouldn't be using that as your benchmark. Especially as it was commissioned by a King whose throne was at risk. He was not nearly as popular as his predecessor, Elizabeth 1st and he needed something to rally the people around him. Commissioning a Bible, in his name, with what the Reformers wanted was the perfect piece of propaganda.

[@Foxty36]

Amen, totally agree ❤

[@tavakedo]

Por favor, coloque o conteúdo do vídeo por escrito, para quem não fala o inglês, traduzir no Google. Eu só falo o Português.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for this request. We transcribe these videos for the KZbin subtitles, so you have two options for having them translated into portuguese. First, tap the settings wheel on the KZbin player. Click "Subtitles," and then "Auto-translate." Here you have the option for translations into many langauges, including Portuguese. Alternatively, also on KZbin, you can click "Show Transcript." From here, you can copy the transcrip and have it translated. Both of these methods work on KZbin.com. The process on the mobile app may be different. __________ Obrigado por este pedido. Transcrevemos esses vídeos para as legendas do KZbin, então você tem duas opções para traduzi-los para o português. Primeiro, toque na roda de configurações no player do KZbin. Clique em “Legendas” e depois em “Traduzir automaticamente”. Aqui você tem a opção de traduções para vários idiomas, inclusive português. Alternativamente, também no KZbin, você pode clicar em “Mostrar transcrição”. A partir daqui, você pode copiar a transcrição e traduzi-la. Ambos os métodos funcionam no KZbin.com. O processo no aplicativo móvel pode ser diferente.

[@jasonmeineke8788]

Thx so much I was awakened to the truth years ago at 33 years old my eyes were first opened to the book of Enoch and my Faith has grown so much since then. These books are amazing people need to read them. I was part of methodist church presbyterian Baptist. But these books with your religion or more. I think there should just be gentilelse that believe what they believe. But I believe that these books. A lot of Christians aren't opened their eyes to this

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for sharing this part of your journey, Jason. We agree that Christians can learn much from the apocryphal books and pseudepigraphal books like Enoch.

[@jeremysonnier9993]

Only the first edition of the Authorized Version (King James Bible) had the Apochropha. The translators put them between the testaments rather than scattered throughout the Old Testament because the inspiration of those books was questionable. It was then completely removed from subsequent editions.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for this observation, Jeremy.

[@mpenner2124]

A little fact check, sorry, but KJV printings contained the apocrypha until conflicts over it resulted in its removal in the late 1800's, centuries later and comparatively recently. My grandparents' old KJV Bibles still included it. The reason it was placed between the testaments was because that was the time period when they were sourced and, since a common teaching has been that God was silent for 400 years, they were a contradictory testimony to that. Some of them also had significant problems with provenance that made them doubtful or worse. Not all of those are included in the far older Septuagint that Bercot is relying upon.

[@Foxty36]

It was not removed until 1865

[@RaechelleJ]

What do Anabaptist think of the Orthodox church? Aren't they the " first traditional church?

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

I have never heard a consensus or agreement on what Anabaptists think of the Orthodox church. Probably, each Anabaptist has different thoughts about that tradition.

[@ReluctantPost]

The problem and difference is that the Eastern Church, even though finally excommunicating the Pope and Roman church in the 11th century, has maintained some of the errors that originate in the Constantinian state-church hybrid of the 4th century and later, contrary to the earliest teachings of the Church and the Scriptures regarding such matters as the Kingdom of God being separate from and incompatible with the kingdoms of this world (so Christians are to live here as peaceful pilgrims and strangers). They believe they have the same right and means of progressive revelation and interpretation, “binding and loosing,” as was granted to the Apostles. In contrast, the earliest Christians teach the necessity of conformance to the original apostolic churches, as Rome and Antioch and Alexandria, etc., once were. Change from that was seen as error, and a large number of Anabaptists would still see that as error today. The fruits of the error can be seen prominently right now between the orthodox churches of Russia vs. those in Ukraine. In many practical respects, they nearly function as departments of their respective governments, though there are faithful priests (prests-presbyters) who oppose this and always have. Many of those were martyred following the 1917 revolution in Russia. I know one personally today who is of that kind and, in many respects, especially when he speaks of nonresistance or divorce and remarriage, he is very ancient-leaning and more Anabaptist than modern Orthodox. In other respects, he has much that he could teach modern Anabaptists, but Bercot and others have done a great job bringing those correctives to attention.

[@luisfiesco5698]

Whatever writings have been discovered or written, always compare them with accepted Scripture. Test it with the Word of God.

[@jesusstudentbrett]

But the apocrypha is the Word of God, history shows it was canon by Jews and christians, then uninspired men without enough fear of God ignored their forefathers and history and thought they knew better, and put them either in a special category OR rejected them altogether. God commands us do not exclude his words nor add in both Deuteronomy and Revelation. So they were in the canon *and then excluded* . So since the facts show we are not adding them, but just as the Southern Kingdom of Judah's king Josiah realized the Law of Moses *had been lost* and then found in his day, and joyfully responded appropriately *to restore it* , so should we with these books that the devil has cleverly disparaged.

[@jesusstudentbrett]

Luis Fiesco Our current NT canon that is 27 books was decided by the state church around 400 AD. The first cut was 28 books in 390 AD with the release of the Apostolic Constitutions. This tradition has been handed down. So do you trust them enough to have made that decision to follow their other church council decisions? Do you follow the Apostolic Constitutions? I say that because none of the apostles nor Jesus told us what books to use. So we have a dilemma. How do uninspired men know what is inspired? This is an honest question. I am not implying anything, just asking?

[@ToOpen6seven]

@@jesusstudentbrett Do you really believe such a lie? Do you think OUR GREAT LORD AND SAVIOR AND THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE is that little or weak that He did not ensure every jot and tittle (of the 66 books of the KJV) was exactly where it needed to be and if the Apocrypha needed to be there they would be!! Much info found in those extra-biblical books are false and are contrary to HOLY and INSPIRED scripture). I agree that if you read it, please test and check and try everything you read against the 66 canonical scriptures!

[@SimonPertus]

Just a few thoughts: 1. Given the historical witness, I am open to rehabilitating the Apocrypha. But who defines the Apocrypha? Do only those contained in the Septuagint count? Are we now allowed to read all kinds of extra-biblical and heretical writings? Where does it begin and where does it end? And how do we defend ourselves against the Roman Catholics, Mormons and Mohammedans who claim that the (Protestant) Bible has been corrupted in this or that way and is incomplete? 2. Just because Jude gives us some words of the real Enoch does not mean that the whole so-called Book of Enoch is confirmed and inspired. Nor can I claim that the document I coincidentally "found" in my attic is the "Gospel according to St. Paul" just because the title says so. Even if we find said quote in the Book of Enoch, it only means that the Holy Spirit inspired Judas independently of other sources and that the same words can also be found in a pseudoepigraphical book. You need more than just a quote, such as for example true prophecies and of course consistency with the rest of Scripture. The argumentum ad verecundiam that Tertullian mentions it doesn't count either, because he is fallible and just another human being. Just because your favorite preacher says something doesn't make it true for his sake alone. The same can also be said about the names of the Egyptian magicians (2 Timothy 3:8). There were various Jewish traditions, but it was the Holy Spirit who independently inspired the apostle Paul and gave him the right names. This does not allow us now to add all sorts of Jewish mystical writings or even the Jesus-cursing Talmud to the Holy Scriptures.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

You raise a lot of big issues and legitimate questions here, Simon. We recommend hearing out a variety of perspectives on the Christian canon. To hear a slightly less enthusiastic take on the apocryphal books' inclusion in the canon, we recommend hearing this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/imPFmZ2urpWFf80feature=shared

[@SimonPertus]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives Thank you for your reply. The video you suggested is indeed less "radical". I would be very careful about putting the Apocrypha on the same level as the rest of the true Scriptures, but I wouldn't condemn it as sheer heresy either. The path that many Christians have taken so far seems to be the most reasonable one: The Apocrypha is useful and interesting, but subordinate to Scripture, so that in the event of a contradiction, the Bible emerges victorious. Like all other "Christian" literature, it may be used to provide context and good thoughts, but only according to the principle: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1. Thessalonians 5:21 However, this requires experience and Bible knowledge, which is why it is better not to recommend the Apocrypha to all kinds of people and Christians in order to prevent confusion and false doctrine.

[@Pat.hibuleire]

You never realised the church fathers were catholics or the 500 years old hatred is to much for you to accept the truth ​@@AnabaptistPerspectives

[@kena3234]

They found some apocryphal books of the Bible in the Dead Sea scrolls. So they were in use by the first century Jews in the Holy land. Of course best preserved in their Greek form through the Septuagint

[@glennbalkin8247]

I don't believe the Apocrypha can be trusted. There are many contradictions in the Books. However, I would love someone to test my belief about those books.

[@HarmonicWave]

There's a series where they do that, they test the "books left outside" as the Jews call them. It's called "Honor of Kings" on the Kingdom in Context channel.

[@glennbalkin8247]

@@HarmonicWave thank you!

[@tylermcdonough3007]

I don’t think it’s wrong to study the apocrypha as a history book but you can’t take it as inspired words of God. There are some things in the apocrypha that contradicts scripture

[@Peregrino1995]

¡Traduzcan al español por favor! No todos sabemos inglés...

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

We're so sorry! Sadly, none of us doing the production work for Anabaptist Perspectives know Spanish.

[@caleblucas2333]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives It should be possible to find a spanish catholic community in America willing to help with translation. Who knows, there could be spanish community out there seeking the word of God.

[@Papasquatch73]

copie la transcripción del video en el traductor de google y léalo.

[@benstoth]

Around minute 18 they mention the book of Enoch. David misses when Jesus calls it scripture (Mark 12:22, Matthew 22:29) “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” And the beatitudes have Jesus quoting the book of Enoch again. Most people know about the majority of Jude 1 being directly taken from Enoch.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Mark 12:22 may be an allusion to Tobit. What from Enoch is quoted in the Beatitudes?

[@benstoth]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives I went through Tobit a few times, I can’t find anything to do with angels and marriage. Which verse in particular? Thank you.

[@jackshannon777]

Why isn't Bercot Anglican?

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Good question. From what I understand, he did spend some time in the Anglican church. Perhaps you could find a satisfactory answer to your question in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3iyoGqFZpqmrdU

[@james_votava]

Sirach/Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus is truthful.

[@walkingonwater1967]

you can make the case this was 3 denial the 3rd rooster crow

[@candyclews4047]

It's so sad to listen to this man and realise the prejudices that had been instilled in his heart. The Apocrypha has always been in the Bible. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament and this remained the case, in all Bibles, up until the Reformation. Although as you say, Martin Luther actually translated the Apocrypha in his first German edition and it also appeared in the King James Version of 1611 as well as the first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible. It was largely removed, in the end, because it underpinned Catholic teachings - and of course, the Reformers couldn't have that. Nearly 500 years later, hate of the Catholic Church and indoctrination has delivered a very sad 'apostate' situation. Personally, I don't think anyone should have messed with the Word of God, removing books from the Bible, although the Reformers got away with it by saying the Apocrypha was not inspired.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Hi Candy. Thanks for the feedback. I am a bit perplexed, though. As I understand David, he'd probably agree with what you wrote hear, especially the history part. What prejudices do you see in our heart?

[@candyclews4047]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives Against the Catholic Church - his upbringing had clearly been against it which meant it was such a surprise when he discovered what he had been told was not true. I understand these prejudices began back in the 16th Century.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for explaining, Candy.

[@tylermcdonough3007]

The Lord said he’d preserve His word. If the Lord wanted the apocrypha in the Bible I believe he would have preserved it

[@candyclews4047]

@@tylermcdonough3007 Well that's a convenient excuse. Constantinople was the centre of Christendom at one time. Now, only a few thousand Christians live there, amongst millions of Muslims. Why did God not preserve them? Because, we believers are under constant attack, whether it is through the scriptures, our countries, our churches. Jesus told us in Matthew 24:13 that he who endures to the end will be saved. This clearly tells us that we will endure trials in this world. Messing with the Bible is horrific to me, removing 7 books that had been part of the Canon for 1,300 years and then a few men decide they are to be no more? Martin Luther had these books in his German translation and they were even in the 1611 King James Version so - no this was the underhand work of man, under the influence of Satan.

[@ClarkAboudaz]

I don’t trust the apocrypha as scripture because it contains historical errors in it. If it was from God it needs to be perfect. There is also canons of the Old Testament that don’t have the apocrypha books in them in the early church. I would also argue Tertullian didn’t see the apocrypha as scripture but something that can be helpful to read like his view of Enoch

[@MrJuanduenas]

They are history books and that is it.

[@ToOpen6seven]

Amen!!

[@mpenner2124]

How old was Ahaziah when he became king, according to the Masoretic (Hebrew text) and KJV? What do you do with historical contradictions that are in what you consider the inspired text?

[@jamessheffield4173]

The Hebrew canon was closed 5th century B.C. While books were still being written no Jewish order to put other books into the canon or taking out books. Those extra books are interesting, but not part of the Oracles of God received from Jews. Peace.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Hi James. Thanks for this input. If you haven't yet seen it, you may be interested in another video we published on this channel that provides some additional nuance to the question of the Apocrypha's canonicity. kzbin.info/www/bejne/imPFmZ2urpWFf80

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives Thanks. Blessings.

[@calvinpeterson9581]

Every council that listed the canon of scripture in the 5th century included the Deuterocanon.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@calvinpeterson9581 That wouldn't affect the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish canon. The Anglican is the compromise that could bring peace. INMOHO

[@swim96ful]

@@jamessheffield4173 Hey James, thanks for your comment! Could you share your source/ evidence that the Scripture canon was closed ? I am looking for some good arguments here so would appreciate your help!

[@Iluda44]

Apocrypha IS going to change the christian doctrine. It has.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Do you have examples of doctrines that the apocrypha has changed?

[@Iluda44]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives yes Genesis 6 about the sons of God. False teaching.

[@inTruthbyGrace]

I did not know that Anabaptists believe you can atone for sins by praying for the dead and taking up monetary collections to atone for their sins! too bad. 2 Maccabees 12: 43-46 [

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Good point. This passage is indeed in an apocryphal book, but I don’t know of any anabaptists who think this passage is as a model for our imitation.

[@MrJuanduenas]

@@AnabaptistPerspectives You have a problem If you consider it to be scripture. They are scripture. Simple.

[@jesusstudentbrett]

When I read the OT just like these books that later became known as Apocrypha around 400 AD by Jerome, I see in the narrative books/accounts like Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges especially, 1 & 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job etc, things that men, Israelites, or Jews did that either was as God approved of or did not approve of. SOMETIMES the text tells us God's opinion in this regard and sometimes it does not and left to the reader to discern this. 2 Maccabees is *no different* in that here are Jews doing this that each event and person may be doing what is pleasing to God either: in part, or completely or not at all. It is really that simple. In Job, we see his friends treating Job that the end of the book reveals God is upset with. But since these friends of Job are in the Bible, their words and opinions, are you going to imitate them? I hope not. Many books in the OT do not tell us God's opinion just like here. Sometimes the NT inspired writers reflect on a book and THEN we find out God's opinion, but sometimes not. These books that once upon a time were in our canon but later excluded by uninspired men, are filled with gems and jewels. If you let your bias and prejudice based on years of rhetoric steer you away, you will lose out and if you disparage them to others after the knowledge they were scripture in the beginning, you will give an account to Christ on Judgment Day, for he warned "by your words you will be justified and by your words, you will be condemned." Fear God and step carefully, fearfully working out your salvation trembling.

[@janne2olof301]

All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching 2Tim 3:16. The Apocrypha isn’t. It’s not Scripture as Roman Catholics would have us believe. I wouldn’t trust this man too much.

[@alexgrubb6640]

Great job showing a serious problem in going down this path

[@MrJuanduenas]

They are only good for history and not as scripture.

[@ToOpen6seven]

That is it and I wouldn't read it period. There are other works on Christian history that adheres more to the 66 inspired books (The Bible kjv). If I never read a history book but stick with studying the Holy Word of God and being doers of His word, I will be OK!!! 1 Corinthians 1:23-29 kjv 23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. 2 Timothy 2:15 -16 kjv 15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.