Apocrypha, use it, trust it?

I did not find a preface or statement in the Thomas Nelson KJV 1611 reprint. But it is likely the translators viewed the Apocrypha as did others before them.

From the title to Apocrypha in Luther's Bible (1534): "Apocrypha, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, and yet which are useful and good to read."

From the preface of the Geneva Bible (1560): "The books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served 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..."

 

Marcia wrote:
"As the article I excerpted above states, Jude does not refer to the book of Enoch but to Enoch the prophet -- big difference."


I would have to agree with Marcia. Enoch 1 & 2 were "compiled" and put in written form approx 200 BC. There is no reference, that I can find, that says Enoch ever "wrote" what is contained in the Enochs.

My personal opinion is that they attribute a whole lot to Enoch that is pure fabrication. If you read through these books, they are filled with anti-scriptural concepts - when compared to the Tenakh.

Just because the one statement in Jude is attributed to Enoch and is also found in the books does not make him the author of them.

 

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/ordbk.htm

THE HOLY BIBLE,
Conteyning the Old Testament,
AND THE NEW:

Newly Translated out of the Originall
tongues: & with the former Translations
diligently compared and revised, by his
Majesties Special Commandment.
Appointed to be read in Churches.
Imprinted at London by Robert
Barker, Printer to the Kings
most Excellent Majestie.
ANNO DOM. 1611.

Revisions:
1629, 1638 by John Bois and Samuel Ward, Cambridge
1762 by Thomas Paris, Cambridge
1769 by Benjamin Blayney, Oxford
1873 Paragraph by Scrivener, Cambridge

 

I don't think the issue is swearing off all human writings. But the OP asks, "Apocryha, use it, trust it?"

My response is:
1. Use it how?
2. Yes, use it for some info, such as the info in Maccabees (though wouldn't one want to check out this account with historical info)
3. Trust it? Not as God's word or even as something necessarily productive or useful. Some of it may be useful or productive but I would put it on the same level as any other human writings.

Is it or is it not true that we don't know who the authors of the Apocrypha are?

 

Sorry, StraightandNarrow, let me clarify that. I meant that it does not have a preface to the Apocrypha. It may be mentioned in "The Translators to the Reader", but I don't think so.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/PREF1611.html

 

This is a reasoned approach. We may tend to overreact against the Apocrypha because it stands in a position of being recognized as the word of God by some. It has parts that are useful and some that aren't, which must be carefully judged just as any other human writings. We certainly won't fail to understand the word of God simply by not reading all that uninspired writers have written.

 

This is a reasoned approach. We may tend to overreact against the Apocrypha because it stands in a position of being recognized as the word of God by some. It has parts that are useful and some that aren't, which must be carefully judged just as any other human writings. We certainly won't fail to understand the word of God simply by not reading all that uninspired writers have written. </font>[/QUOTE]As I posted earlier, the Apocrypha was in the 1611 Authorized version of the Bible. I thought that was generally recognized as the inerrant word of God.

 

Sure, why not? I'm always confused by how often people spend tons of money on the latest scriptural commentaries. Meanwhile, the best scriptural commentaries, the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha, continue to go unread by most of those same folks.

 

Not really. 2Mac has been used by Catholics, and claimed by protestants, to support purgatory, but 2 Mac is actually referring to the OT belief that the souls of the dead went to Hades to rest. One need to view 2 Mac through OT Jewish eyes, not NT Christian ones, to comprehend this.

 

I see no problem with engaging in a study of the Apocrypha by a Christian seeking to learn more about the world God has made. Similarly, I would see no problem with a "Bible believing Baptist" Christian (or any other Christian for that matter) studying the Koran, or the Bagavadvida (sp?) or even the latest text on evolution - why? so as not to be ignorant and to prepare an answer to any who might ask concerning the faith. Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but if you want to know the traffic laws of particular country, it will not help you - you will have to look in another book. I don't understand why some people have trouble in distinguishing between "sole" authority and "supreme" authority.

 

Are you hankering for a KJVO debate? That's not the subject here. Perhaps there is one going on in the Bible Versions forum.

 

Ron, I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe the Bible is the "sole" (only) authority for faith and practice. I'm not looking in it to find traffic laws. The Bible as the sole authority for me rules out the Apocrypha as the source of any religious authority. If I were Catholic or Orthodox I suppose I'd think differently. Anyway (to me), ruling it out for authority doesn't rule out reading it.

 

I hold to the Bible as my supreme authority for living. I don't think of the way I live in religious terms (although I find myself using those terms in church - because that's the language of the church). My relationship is the foundatinoal relationship in my life, which molds and shapes my lifestyle. The Bible is my supreme authority in this lifestyle, from which lesser authorities are delegated. I can, for example, support and obey legal authority with good conscience because I am directed to do so by Biblical authority. I can study and apply what I might learn from the Aprocrypha or other religious material within the parameters set for me by biblical authority. I don't think in terms of "faith and practice" as differentiated from other types of authority. Perhaps this comes from my 20 years in the military, but I think of authority like a chain of command, with God, through the Holy Bible as Supreme Commander, with lesser commanders He has appointed I must listen to.

 

The only point I was making was that the Apocrypha is included in the Authorized King James Bible. Where do we draw the line at what's God's word and what is not and upon what basis. I always thought that the 1611 KJV was viewed as God's word.

 

Ron, I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe the Bible is the "sole" (only) authority for faith and practice. I'm not looking in it to find traffic laws. The Bible as the sole authority for me rules out the Apocrypha as the source of any religious authority. If I were Catholic or Orthodox I suppose I'd think differently. Anyway (to me), ruling it out for authority doesn't rule out reading it. </font>[/QUOTE]Which Bible (version)?

 

Ron, I don't think we really have much disagreement other than in the terms we're using to explain it, perhaps because of perspective. My perspective probably comes more from church history, while yours from military change of command. I can't really see much, if anything, in what you write here that I couldn't agree with. When I say faith and practice, that covers everything I believe and everything I do. It will work out as you describe above. Then, for example, I will find traffic laws in a place other than the Bible. I will obey them because the Bible says we ought to obey governmental authority. Of course, in an imperfect world we don't always do what we're supposed to.

 

rlvaughn

No, I'm not looking for a KJV discussion. I didn't know that the Apocrypha was in the Authorized King James version until about two months ago and I was surprised. It actually reinforces my belief that none of the versions of the Bible, while absolutely correct in doctrine, are inerrant. I found this quote on the site you referenced:

Are There Problems with the King James Bible??

►IMPORTANT NOTE: This dictionary is based on the A.D. 1611 Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (sometimes known as the ‘He Bible’ – see above) using the Cambridge text of the KJV (as opposed to the Oxford text). This is important to note because there are a few slight differences between the 1611 Bible and the KJV of today. There are even two or three minor differences between some modern KJV Bible editions, so the reader may find a variation of a word that is not in his or her KJV. Do not despair.

Some people believe the KJV is archaic and full of problems. It is the opinion of this author that, although there are certain minor differences between the A.D. 1611 and the modern KJV, there are no doctrinal problems or errors as such. Rather, the modern KJV is an accurate and trustworthy duplicate of the 1611 with only minor exceptions. (This opinion considers the 66 Books of the Bible only (39 in the OT, and 27 in the NT), without the apocrypha, the reading schedules or any notes of any kind.)

This last statement is akin to saying the Bible is inerrant with these exceptions, with some exceptions being whole books of the Bible.

 

2 Ezra 6:42 from the Latin does indeed say this thing.

Its the verse Columbus used to argue his point before Ferdinand that the journey to "India" was not going to be so great.

It should be noted that the Armenian text for this passage says nothing of the like.

I have a growing dislike for texts from the Latin tradition.

 

neither the jews nor the Lord jesus/His Apostles saw them as being canon/inspired writtings...

best advise is to read them as history of the era, but NOT for either doctrines/practices!