These Apocrypha books come to us from the original publication of the King James bible. It seems its authors didn't know what to do with these books, so they stuck them at the end.
Whether these books are truly apocryphal ("false"), or deuterocanonical ("not really part of cannon") is a matter of perspective. To hundreds of mllions of Christians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox church, the Eastern Catholical Church, and other traditions, these books are Scripture and part of the Bible.
The Wisdom of Ben Gira -- Ecclesiasticus -- was not part of the 1611 King James publication, but it's too good not to be included.
Another gem of the deuterocanon is chapter 14 of the Additions to the Book of Daniel -- there be dragons!.
The Book of Tobit is another interesting story, an autobiography of sorts...
Comments
Do you know about the Q documents?
Supposedly the Q documents are the ancient, lost books of the bible, the oldest living version. They were found in a cave in Palestine in 1932, and they have been translated to English. They are not exactly the same as the King James, but are they part of the Apocrypha?
"The" Q Document versus the Dead Sea Scrolls
Joan,
Perhaps you are confusing the Q Document with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Q Document is basically a theoretical/postulated document that scholars say must have existed. It helps explain the differences between Matthew and Luke.
I think you're wondering about the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed a lost, early version of the Bible. And yes they were discovered only recently in a cave. The Dead Sea scrolls consist of roughly 900 documents, discovered between in the late 1940s in a cave near the Dead Sea, on the West Bank. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, because they include practically the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism.
They don't have anything to do with the New Testament, really.
the dead sea scrolls
they were just fake testaments that catholicism used to attract people like the visit of th angel where the creater of the moronites or mormons found two testaments of gold then told it to someone and to test him he said he lost the first writ of it so he just made up a new one
the dead sea scrolls again
and also no scholars have said they existed why do you think they have the originals hidden in the popes church in rome
Apocryphal texts
Dear John, I'm not sure that I would agree with your definition (given above) of “apocrypha”. Whilst the term has come to mean, in common parlance something not entirely legitimate, in the context of the Biblical works that appear described as such, the term stems from the Greek and means “hidden away” or “obscured” (‘apokryptien’ to hide from, or secret away; related to ‘kryptien’ or crypt as we know it in English). The mediaeval Latin form, from the 14th century is the plural (neuter) of ‘apocryphus’ meaning secret and related to the notions surrounding hermetic wisdom (literally ‘sealed’ or ‘contained’ knowledge). So the suggestion that these works are dueterocanonical I would suggest, is based more upon the kind of knowledge they contain than their legitimacy as part of the Bible per se (i.e. they are not ‘false’ in some way). Like the Hadith that contain much of the accumulated wisdom from the Prophet and his Companions that illuminates aspects of the Qur’an, these works might be seen as similar perhaps. It may also be that they contain vestiges of much earlier traditions, as with Tobit - a work that has much of Persian Mazdaism in it (from Zoroaster’s teachings). The curious inclusion of the dog in the story tells us as much, as dogs were an important part of the ritual practices of the Magi (hence the antagonism of early Muslim proscriptions against these animals, and the inclusion of cats in many of the Hadith regarding the Prophet, as a kind of oppositional position on domestic creatures). Rafael and the Archangels also come to us from older Persian traditions and we tend to forget their origins in Mazdaism and Judaism when we look at them from Christian and Muslim perspectives today (sadly as we forget so much about the commonalities between the various revelations we subscribe to as versions of our faith in God, and the wondrous diversity of the Creation). Forgive the length (and perhaps presumptuousness) of this comment, but as we have just passed the Feast of Archangel Rafael (Old Calendar 24th October) and approach the Feast of Archangels Gabriel, Michael and Rafael (New Calendar 29th October), I was prompted to find the story of Tobit, Tobias and Rafael again, as it was not in my Revised Standard Version Bible (though it had been in my childhood Anglican Bible and was one of my favourites). I'm glad to say that it is here and thank you...
an addition to the above
you you know the muslim and mormon origins are basically the same story except muslims beliefs are the founder was in the desert after being cast out of his former home town for being pretty much a con artist and is spoken to by an angel and in his story he writes down the story and doesnt testaments but in mormonism he finds testaments and has someone else write it down both of these religions are semi based on the foundations of the babylonian mystery religion where its based on human works to earn salvation like the catholic church post 12th century england when they all had a religious revitalization and although they are a god based religion you still have to earn your way into heaven instead of asking for forgiveness you have to die in the name of allah or tell others about the religion or your life just ends because you must earn your way into the 144000 people who go to heaven or in catholicism where you have to tell apriest who is possibly a child mollester all your sins and somehow they can forgive you or somehow take on your sins for you or something but yet how can a man born with the mark of original sin because of the sins of his forefather that they can be imbued with that kind of power and you know whats funny i know all this and yet im only 15 and i have a better more developed vocabulary and i know more things than most adults
David
A Priest listens to your sins the Lord forgives you not the Priest. John 20 21-23. James 5:16. Remember Christ is speaking to his aposles not you. To call a priest a child molester is really stupid. Not all of them are messed up and the Catholic Church has been cleaning out the Church. At least they are doing something about it. A hand full does not make them all bad. Not to mention the few came from our country. You do not know alot for being 15. You should study Christianity prior to the reform. You might learn something.
Sincerely JP
Post new comment