"apocrypha"

[+Donny]

heard this was the catholic's addition to the bible, anyone know anything about this?

[SccHarpGirl]

what precisely do you want to know?

[SccHarpGirl]

Let me go pull up my researched and unbiased thing on these and then give you my opinion, K?


Here 'tis

"Apocrypha--A collection of writings found in the Greek Old Testament but not in the Hebrew scriptures. They are curently thought to have been made up of thirteen books, 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, add. to Esther, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah and Song of the three young men, Additions to the book of Daniel, and 1 and 2 Maccabes. All but 1 Esdras are considered canonical by Catholics, who refer to these books as Deuterocanonical books. (sources-webster's dictionary and encyclopedia, Encarta encyclopedia)"

As a catholic, I do consider the books of Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith and additions to Esther and Daniel to be canonical.

[+Donny]

okay, any non catholics out there think they arent?

[SccHarpGirl]

Some denominations don't think that they are biblical. Some do, but I'm not entirely sure which ones these are.

[+Donny]

*sigh* well, ill wait for someone on the other side then

[mesabooger]

Donny, I use the NIV (just to let you know where I astand).
But you are wrong, the Catholics did not add them, they were removed by the early Christian church. Remeber all this happened in the early stages of the Church. So it is another one of those argueble Christian/Catholic deals.

[MrCrabby]

The Apocrypha is made up of 13 books written during the Inter-Testemental period. (The 400 years between Malachi and Jesus' birth.)
They are not considered to be inspired writtings, and some have been found to have errors and contradictions. (don't ask me for them, i don't know what they are.)
There were 2 other works that came out of that period, the Pseudepigrapha, whose name means "false writings," and the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.

[+Donny]

so I should avoid them?

[guitarman]

You shouldn't "avoid" them. Read them and decide for youself.

Aaron

[+Donny]

so I should to the same and judge every book in the Nt seperately?

[Luke]

Originally posted by mesabooger
Donny, I use the NIV (just to let you know where I astand).
But you are wrong, the Catholics did not add them, they were removed by the early Christian church. Remeber all this happened in the early stages of the Church. So it is another one of those argueble Christian/Catholic deals.

Er, no. The Catholics added them. The original canon included only one apocryphal book (Baruch).

[+Donny]

is Baruch reliable?

[Phil]

Originally posted by SCCHarpGirl

As a catholic, I do consider the books of Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith and additions to Esther and Daniel to be canonical.
Why? Their in your Bible...

[guitarman]

If you're catholic, then you consider those books to be duterocanonical.

The only historically reliable book is 1 Maccabees.

so I should to the same and judge every book in the Nt seperately?
Yup. But I'll save you the time - the books included in protestant canon are reliable and accurate. Apocryphal books are not considered reliable and accurate by many protestand scholars. If you want to find out what is in them, then go ahead and read them :).

Aaron

[+Donny]

hm,t hanks guys, im busy with the book of mormon right now, ill look at those books eventually