O.K. let is look for a brief bit at the entry of the Apocrypha into some versions of the Bible.

The beginning of the entry of the Apocrypha into Bibles can be traced at least back to the time of Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C,), when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. The LXX is a primary example of the Apocrypha becomming a part of the Greek Scriptures. You will note that this occured many years before the origon of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome has been mentioned as a Roman Catholic source for the Apocrypha entering the Bible. It should be noted that writing in the 5th cent A.D. Jerome specificly stated that the Apocryphical books found in the LXX should not be considered as a doctrinal source. Yes, he did give some historical value to them, which is true for some of the Apocryphica. But, he was clear that they were not to be used for doctrine.

I am aware that later versions of Jerome did include the Apocryphica. But, remember that he did not consider it to be a proper doctrinal source.

The so-called Council of Jamnia, about 100 A.D. is sometimes given as a reference for determining the cannon of Scripture. Those who give this source are off-course as this alleged Council lacks historicity.

When Augustine came around, he began to promote the Apocryphica as being a doctrinal source. The Council of Trent (1546) held to that position.

What can we make of all of this? Yes, the Roman Catholic Church played a role in the acceptance of the Apocryphica. But, do not give it more of a role that it is due. The Apocryphica pre-dated the RC Church. The Apocryphica was well established as part of the cannon of Scripture, in some parts of the world, before the RC Church had anything to say about it.

Are you saying the Apocrypha was Canon or divinely inspired, as even Jerome recognized it was not, can you clarify your thoughts on it.

Thank you for asking. Your question is very important and if I am not clear I want to be asked.

The basic meaning of the word "canon," as used in this context is authorative teaching as decreed by a church or denomination. In this sense, the Apocrypha is considered to be canonical by some religious groups. A formost example of this type of useage is the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the LXX.

Most, but not all, Protestants do NOT beleive that the Apocrypha is a valid part of the canon of Scripture. I agree. It, in my opinion is not intended by God to be an auathorative part of Scripure. In my opinon, it is not inspired and is not apparopriate for doctrinal useage.

Now, let us talk a bit more about specific parts of the Apocrypha.

1st Macabees is good history of the Intertestamental period. In fact, is some ways it is the best that we have.

2nd Macabees also provides some good history, but it is not on the same level as 1st Macaabees.

NOTE: In saying good history, I am not saying inspired.

Tobit is simply junk and cannot be believed as having any basis in objective fact.

Judith is a nice devotional book that is not thought to have any basis in fact. It is sort of like some of the books that are published today by Christian publishers that teach a wonderful moral teaching but are simply so-called "pious ficiton."

Several of the apocryphal books are similar books published today by Christian authors. They may present the teachings of the Jewish sects in place at that time. As such they may be authorative as pertains to the teachings of that Jewish sect. Ecclesiasticus is one example of this.

The Story of Susanna is a wonderful tale about Daniel which seems to be based upon a well-known Bablyonian tale. Bell and the Dragon, also about Daniel, is pure junk.

I have here made a few brief comments about certain common elements of the Apocrypha. Some groups add writings that are not considered to be common elements. In addition, there are other groups of writings, such as the pseudopigrapha and more.

These writings often go much further from the inspired writings than do the so-called Apocrypha.

An example of this is those writing that claim to report the childhood of christ, such as the Gospel of Thomas.

None of these were either inspired or intended by God to be a part of the Canon of Scripture. These area typically not considered to be a part of the Canon of Scripture by any Christian group.

Johann showed where it was intentionally changed in violation of the agreed upon rules and to the wrong. How do see that as "careful and good intent"?

I havea beean struggling as to what books I could recommend for your reading pleasure on tshe subjects that are being discussed here. I will mention two:

Lee J. Gugliotto. HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY: A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING, TEACHING, AND PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD. Review & HEralad PUblishisng Association. 1995 & 2000, 464 pages, 2000 edition.

The above book covers 16 different subject areas and is well thought of by conservative Bible scholars outside of the SDA Church. I soundly recommend it.

Philip W. comfort, Editor. THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO: THE AUTHORITY & INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE, THE CONON OF THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE AS A LITERARY TEXT, THE BIBLE TEXT & MANUSCRIPTS & BIBLE TRANSLATIONS. 1992, Tyndale House, 308 pages.

This is a book that is conservative and tends toward fundamentalist in some of the authors which include: F. F. Bruce, Carl F. H. Henry and J. I. Packer and others. No one can ever call it a liberal book. While I do not agree with everything that is said in the book, I am very impressed with it. I mention it due to the fact that it is not liberal and therefore may be helpful to people reading this thread.

Johann never did show where it was changed. He only said that it had been changed. Furthermore, he claimed the KJV had been changed in fourteen places, implying a difference in word choice. It so happens that the NIV has more entire verses missing than that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, so we can agree that the Apocrypha is not Canon of Scripture as it was basically brought in to allow for false ideas and traditions and pagan philosophy brought in by the Gnostics. As with the ancient Mystery Religions from Babylon, false doctrines came into the church and are supported by the writings of the Gnostics and by the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha books are based on mysticism and supposedly contain the secret doctrines which also was the core belief of Gnosticsism. To rise to God, the Gnostic would have reach the secret "knowledge" which mixes philosophy, metaphysics, curiosity, culture, knowledge, and secrets or hidden things, which are opened to the enlightened or illuminated ones. These writings were never considered part of the Canon, as they clearly contradict the Scriptures as can be seen in the following few examples:

Bewitching Art:
Tobias 6:4-8 ... Open the fish, and take the heart and liver and the gall .....if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall no more be vexed. As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath witness in his eyes, and he shall be healed.

The Biblical rebuke to this statement is found in Mark 16:17 and Acts 16:18:
And signs will follow to those believing these things: in My name they will cast out demons. Mark 16:17
... But being distressed, and turning to the demonic spirit, Paul said, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her! And it came out in that hour. Acts 16:18

Salvation by Works:
Tobias 12:9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Biblical rebuke: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. 1 Peter 1:18-19

Purgatory, prayer for Dead:
2 Maccabees 12:43-46, ... For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead ....Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Biblical rebuke: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

It allowed for the belief that "Almsgiving expiates sins” and “almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:9). The immaculate conception for Mary; reincarnation and transmigration of soul (Wisdom 8:19, 20) and much more false ideas and pagan tradtions.

The Apocrypha was never accepted by the Reformation and the fact is that it was basically forced in on Jerome and others to support the false doctrines and beliefs which the church at Rome wanted to bring or had brung into the church. They used every means available to force these false ideas, regarding the Apocrypha, The Council of Trent decreed:

Whoever shall not receive as sacred and canonical all these books and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed. - Council of Trent fourth session.

You could not choose, it was forced as without it the ancient worship of the dead and Mystery Religions of Babylon could be seen for what they were, and clearly rejected. Just like the NIV and the versions based on the corrupted Alexandrian codices, which took away a hundreds of verses, and by omission of words or change some here, delete some there, and it opens up paths away from Gods truth.

Now as for the Septuagint known also as the LXX because of the idea that 70 scribes were involved in its production and people were led to believe it was written some 250 years before Christ and the Apostles. But this is not the case, it is just another falsehood to lead people to accept it.

Scholars list the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septuagint came from and we see the changes and omission's.

1.A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.

2.Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.

3.C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets.

4.B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all of Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrypha books of the Old Testament.

As you can see, we find the same corrupted Alexandrian codices being used....

Here is more on the Apocrypha that goes more into detail in this article...

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1.The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2.Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3.Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4.These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5.They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6.They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7.The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8.The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9.It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10.The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.
(1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11.Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12.The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13.The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14.Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15.Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16.The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17.Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18.Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19.The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20.Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21.Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.."
http://www.iamforsure.com/articles/Church/Bible/Apocrypha.html

Rick,yes, we agree that the Apocrypha is not inspired and should not be a part of the canon of Scrilpture. However, that agreement does not lead to the assumption that your statement above is correct.

It may be accurate in part, but not in the whole, at least as to what is implied in your statement. It cannota trauthfully be said that the Apocrypha as a whole is Gnostic in origin. It does not come from one source. If one part can be traced to sa Gnostic background that does not mean that another part can so be traced.

The same is true for the so-called Mystery Religions.

What is generally called the Apocrypha first appeared about the 4th century B.C., but most came from the 2nd century forward.

NOTE: The word Apocrypha has had several meanings and is has sometimes been used in a meaning that differs from the common meaning of the extra writings placed in the LXX.

Frankly, your statement above is more accurate in regard to the writings commonly called the Pseudepigrapha. But, not totally (100%) accurate for that.

NOTE my corrected spelling of Pseudepigrapha.