www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Apocryphal errors

Christ is risen!!
Does the Apocrypha contain errors, either historical or spiritual? My Dad seems to think there are but I haven't had the chance to do much studying on my own. If there are errors then can the apochryphal books be divinely inspired? I was taught that the entire canon of Sacred Scripture is the completely inerrent word of God; written by human hands but, in the same way the Pope is infallible in teaching on matters of faith and morals, is uncorrupted by 'human hands.'
Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Sarai

If you are talking about the books in the Catholic Old Testament, referred to by Protestants as "Apocryphal", the answer is NO. They are scripture. Now, there are spurious writings from New Testament times, such as "The Gospel of Thomas" that are properly referred to by Catholics as Apocryphal and not scripture.

The Protestants would LIKE you to think our Deuterocanonical books (the proper name for them) have errors and are not scripture, so that they can say Catholics are wrong about things like prayers for the dead. But Jesus and Paul even quoted from them several times in the New Testament, referring to them as "scripture".

Tammy

Jesus and the Apostles never directly quoted from the "Apocryphal".

Ray,

that's not entirely true (unless you consider the writer of Jude not to be an apostle). The account of the archangel Michael's disputing with the devil over the body of Moses as related by Jude (Jude 1:9) is found in the apochryphal work, the Assumption of Moses. The prophesy of Enoch quoted by Jude (1:14-15) is found in the Book of Enoch.

ALivingSacrafice,
I think you answered part of your question, the Sacred Scriptures are inerrant in matters of faith and morals, not history, or biology etc.
Stephanos I
And true the Church is guarded from error, so the Church decides what is canonical and what is not canonical and not the individual conscience as in Protestantism.
One of the big problemns of religion in America is this distorted idea of democracy in the Church. Sorry, no such animal. The Church is divinely guided and guarded. Faith and Morality is not the product of a popular vote.

Faith and Morality is not the product of a popular vote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with Stephanos here. Thank God for that or we would be subject to every current trend whether morally right or not. Relativism would be prominent and absolutes not necessarily valid.

However, although the Church is not a democracy, under Church authority and guidance we can be free to be all we are meant to be and all we were created to be.

Porter.

Actually, most evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants believe that the Scriptures are also inerrant as far as history, etc. which is one of the reasons given for rejecting the canonicity of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.

I was referring to the books in the Old Testament not the Gospel of Thomas etc.
This is precisely my question-how can books that contain errors(which I'm still not convinced that they do-of history or anything else)be divinely inspired?
And if there are inconsistencies of history or biology or culture or anything else where are they?
I'm not advocating for striking the Deuterocanonical books from the canon of Sacred Scripture, I'm just curious...
In Our Risen Lord
Sarai

Dear Father Deacon John,

You are just so brilliant!

The reference to the sycamore tree by our Lord in the first chapter of John is fully contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus, I believe.

The "seat of Moses" is another tradition that is outside the canonical OT scriptures.

Alex

Sarai, (beautiful name by the way)
The so called deuterocanonical books are a bit more complecated than your question might suggest....there are several books that some churches accept that others do not. For exanple, the Ethiopian Orthodox have a few scriptures (names fail me at the moment) that are not included in other church canons, are they incorrect to have them? Are there errors in those books? If you believe that the Ethiopian church is just as Christian as the rest of us then the answer would have to be no, the books are corrrect.

If you question from a Protestant point of view then there are plenty of books that are in error. Those books were left out for reasons, but some of those reasons have been found to be incorrect. For example, the orriginal King James Version included many "Catholic" books that have since been taken out...I am not sure why to be honest.

I am not quite sure where I was going with thise post....I hope that all makes sense......

In His Name,
Stephen

A good article on some of the historical issues relating to the Deuterocanonicals by Gary Hoge can be found at:

http://catholicoutlook.com/objapoc6.php

I wonder how much of the confusion (among the Catholics and Orthodox) is caused by simple linguistics? The definition of "Apocryphal" according to www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com] is as follows:

a�poc�ry�phal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pkr-fl)
adj.
1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious: �Wildly apocryphal rumors about starvation in Petrograd... raced through Russia's trenches� (W. Bruce Lincoln).
3. Apocryphal Bible. Of or having to do with the Apocrypha.


How much of the previous discussion hinges on the supposition that because the Protestants use Apocrypha (when they are not calling them something worse) then the books must be error-ridden?

I was tremendously amused by the following exerpt from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897):

apocrypha

hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in
the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to
all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which
have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word. (1.)
They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote
from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the
ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it.


(2.) These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the
"period of silence," from the time of Malachi, after which oracles and direct
revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.

(3.) The contents of the
books themselves show that they were no part of Scripture. The Old Testament
Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, the chief of which are the Books of the
Maccabees (q.v.), the Books of Esdras, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch,
the Book of Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, etc. The New Testament
Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct
evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard.


Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary


Gaudior, wishing Easton knew a bit more history or theology...

Well that would be misleading as the book of 1 Maccabees is a book based on history and is considered accurate by historical standards.
So why not accept this book as canonical it is historical.
The main reason has nothing to do with historical accuracy at all it has everything to do with rejecting as many catholic doctrines as they can and still remain in the realm of christianity.
There are many parts of the Bible which are doubtful as for history. Did Balaam's mule talk to him? Did Jonah get swallowed by the whale? There is no evidience that a person named Job ever existed. However the events in 1 Maccabees are known to have surely existed. The census that is mentioned in Matthew is nowhere to be found in Roman records. And therefore the historicity of that little ditty in Matthew is doubtful. Do evangelicals all of sudden throw our Job and Matthew since there are not entirely historical in all their events? I really don't think they want to go there. ANd do they now add the events of 1 Maccabees which most Jews according to tradition accpet as factual Jewish history.

Someone once asked a old man if he believed Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale. The old man answered, "I believe in God. I believe God can make a man and I believe God can make a whale. If God can make a man and a whale, I guess God can certainly make a whale swallow a man." Not historical or scientific.
Pray without ceasing...

What apochryphal texts that would be in the New Testament are worth reading and considered to be factual and such? Is there a good collection of these in one volume? Thanks for the help!

Christos Voskres!