The Apocrypha

[Wingnut]

The Book of Mormon doesn't take as long as people think it does to read. You can do it in 1 month tops. I read about 1/4 of it in less than a week including the testimonies and introduction page.

Tell that to a mother of three, who nannies two other children while her husband is in graduate school, and she's taking online courses to finish her degree.

Or, you know, someone who reads slowly.

[slamjet]

Tell that to a mother of three, who nannies two other children while her husband is in graduate school, and she's taking online courses to finish her degree.

Or, you know, someone who reads slowly.

Well, if you were righteous, you would do it regardless of any excuses

[Wingnut]

Well, if you were righteous, you would do it regardless of any excuses

The first scenario doesn't apply to me, for the record.

[pam]

The point I'm making isn't that members that don't read it are bad people. I'm just curious as to why people see it as such a small thing to read.

You aren't understanding the points that others are making. No one said it was a small thing to read. What many of us are trying to explain is that it is something that does not take priority nor do we see it as something that is vital to read as are our scriptures that we are are told are vital.

[pam]

The Book of Mormon doesn't take as long as people think it does to read. You can do it in 1 month tops. I read about 1/4 of it in less than a week including the testimonies and introduction page.

Well goody for you. The fact is in todays busy lifestyles with jobs, families, children, church responsibilites, civic responsibilities and other things that many of us find ourselves having to deal with, it is difficult to find that kind of time. I've read the Book of Mormon several times through during my lifetime. I've done it quickly and I've read the words. I won't do it that way again. I'm getting ready to start reading it again but this time will be done very slowly and there will be study to go along with it.

In order to read it in 30 days tops you would have to read 7.7 chapters a day. Many of us don't have that kind of time.

Let me quote from a talk by President Hunter concerning scripture study:

We should not be haphazard in our reading but rather develop a systematic plan for study. There are some who read to a schedule of a number of pages or a set number of chapters each day or week. This may be perfectly justifiable and may be enjoyable if one is reading for pleasure, but it does not constitute meaningful study. It is better to have a set amount of time to give scriptural study each day than to have a set amount of chapters to read. Sometimes we find that the study of a single verse will occupy the whole time

. Edited March 10, 2011 by pam

[mordorbund]

<Trying to salvage this thread> What apocrypha/psuedopigrapha/whatever have you read that you've found of worth?

I thought some parts of Jasher are interesting, as well as Enoch. They both have a sort of history with our Church. I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff. Infant Gospel of Thomas, anyone? You wanna talk about a different Jesus?! Oh boy!!

[slamjet]

How about the Gospel of Judas? An account between Judas and Christ, being quite favorable to Judas, among other things.

[Dravin]

How about the Gospel of Judas? An account between Judas and Christ, being quite favorable to Judas, among other things.

I recall a History Channel program (and thus of course to be taken with a grain of salt) about the Gospel of Judas. It's gnostic in nature isn't it?

[slamjet]

As far as I understand it. But then my knowledge of it is limited to Wikipedia. The history of it is quite interesting.

[mordorbund]

How about the Gospel of Judas? An account between Judas and Christ, being quite favorable to Judas, among other things.

Have you read anything of interest in it?

[rameumptom]

April DeCondick is an expert on the Gospel of Judas. She has a blog where she has talked about it in the past. She has a link to some of her stuff on this gospel here:

April D. DeConick

[slamjet]

Have you read anything of interest in it?

Only from the History Channel and Wikipedia. I just threw it out there to attempt to sound intelligent. Did it work?

[mordorbund]

I just read a translation of the Gospel of Judas. It is gnostic, and was identified as heretical by Iranaeus (i, 31, 1):

Chapter XXXI.-Doctrines of the Cainites.

1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

I'm thinking this is the same gospel Iranaeus was writing about as Judas is highlighted as the only disciple among the twelve to receive the hidden knowledge.

They all said, “We have the strength.”

But their spirits did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot. He was

able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face

away.

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are

from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one

who has sent you.”

Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him,

“Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is

possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. [36] For someone else will

replace you, in order that the twelve [disciples] may again come to completion with their

god.”

After a fragmentary portion where the disciples have visions of priests offering sacrifices at the altar (starting with the mosaic and moving along to the barbaric), Judas asks, "what will those who have been baptized in your name do?"

Jesus answers in another fragmentary portion (which I suppose parallels the disciples' visions), and then states to Judas, "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

Without more context, I can't tell if Judas is being glorified for his role in the betrayal, or if he is being shown as the greatest of all the disciples falling. But as Iranaeus points out, it also teaches some gnostic doctrines.

[SteveVH]

<Trying to salvage this thread> What apocrypha/psuedopigrapha/whatever have you read that you've found of worth?

I thought some parts of Jasher are interesting, as well as Enoch. They both have a sort of history with our Church. I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff. Infant Gospel of Thomas, anyone? You wanna talk about a different Jesus?! Oh boy!!

Mordorbund, I am responding to your post because it is a clear example of a trend I see here attempting to equate the deuterocanonical books, which were included in the original canon of Sacred Scripture, with the heretical and uncanonized writings such as the "Gospel of Thomas". The so called "apocrypha" was included in the Old Testament scriptures read by Jesus and the Apostles and remained as canonized scripture for 1500 years, before being tossed out by Luther. The "NT stuff" you referred to, was never canonized and is spurious. They should not be talked about as if they are of equivalent theological or moral value or in any way held in the same esteem.

[Dravin]

Apocrypha - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Note definition b, so it's not incorrect as far as word usage goes. Of course the question as it pertains to the OP is how it was used in Doctrine and Covenants 91 as it's probably a fair indication of how Joseph Smith used the term in relation to LDSC's mention of Joseph Smith's comments on it. The best guess, unless someone can supply additional information, is based on the footnote in the scripture which refers to the LDS Bible Dictionary (Apocrypha )

The books listed (though it doesn't claim to be all inclusive) are:

1st Esadras

2nd Esadras

Tobit

Judith

Some extra chapters in Esther

Wisdom of Solomon

Wisdom of Jesus

Baruch

Book of Three Children

Bel and the Dragon

Prayer of Manasses

1st Maccabees

2nd Maccabees

Which is in line with your use Steve, hanks for pointing that out.

[stormwitch]

Apocrypha - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Note definition b, so it's not incorrect as far as word usage goes. Of course the question as it pertains to the OP is how it was used in Doctrine and Covenants 91 as it's probably a fair indication of how Joseph Smith used the term in relation to LDSC's mention of Joseph Smith's comments on it. The best guess, unless someone can supply additional information, is based on the footnote in the scripture which refers to the LDS Bible Dictionary (Apocrypha )

The books listed (though it doesn't claim to be all inclusive) are:

1st Esadras

2nd Esadras

Tobit

Judith

Some extra chapters in Esther

Wisdom of Solomon

Wisdom of Jesus

Baruch

Book of Three Children

Bel and the Dragon

Prayer of Manasses

1st Maccabees

2nd Maccabees

Which is in line with your use Steve, hanks for pointing that out.

Maybe you should say "Wisdom of Jesus Sirach"... :-)

[Dravin]

Maybe you should say "Wisdom of Jesus Sirach"... :-)

Meh. I abbreviated other titles on the list too.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dravin

[volgadon]

The context to the revelation is that some editions of the KJV included the Apocrypha. Apparently, so did the copy Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon used whilst revising the Bible. That is why the question arose in the first place. We do know that Joseph read other non-canonical works, which he valued highly, such as the 17th century production that is the Book of Jasher.

[SteveVH]

The context to the revelation is that some editions of the KJV included the Apocrypha. Apparently, so did the copy Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon used whilst revising the Bible. That is why the question arose in the first place. We do know that Joseph read other non-canonical works, which he valued highly, such as the 17th century production that is the Book of Jasher.

If you are referring to the deuterocanonical books as "non-canonical", this is actually not accurate. The authority (Catholic Church) that canonized the books of the Bible considered these books as much scripture as they did Genesis or the Gospels, and still do. They were removed by those who had no authority to do so. If Luther had no authority to canonize, which he didn't, he also had no authority to remove the seven books (and parts of others) that are missing from Protestant Bibles. To accept the Bible as the word of God one must accept the authority of the body that proclaimed them so. From where did the authority come to remove anything from the Sacred Scriptures? This would include "revisions" by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. One cannot "tweak" the word of God to benefit their particular belief system.

[volgadon]

Steve, my fault. I forgot the comma between "other" and "non-canonical."

However, to accept the Bible as sacred and authoritative does not require me to accept the body of the early churches any more than your accepting the Old Testament as scripture requires your accepting the authority of early Judaism.

[volgadon]

And as to where authority to tweak scripture came from, you know full well that the LDS faith considers itself a restoration an revelatory faith.

[SteveVH]

And as to where authority to tweak scripture came from, you know full well that the LDS faith considers itself a restoration an revelatory faith.

Yet it accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to have determined the canon of Scripture. If the Church was wrong on part of it, how can you have any confidence that it was correct on the rest of it? In other words, all non-Catholics who accept the Bible as the word of God had better hope that it was led by the Holy Spirit in choosing the books which it canonized. If it was, then it should be accepted in its entirety without any massaging. If it was not then we can have no confidence in any of it. If it is the word of God, then no one has the right to "tweak" it so that it better fits with what they wish to believe. It is one thing to accept the Bible as the word of God and come away with a different interpretation. It is another to accept it as the word of God and then change it.

As far as the LDS church considering itself a "restoration and revelatory faith", the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also consider themselves a "restoration and revelatory faith". Anyone can make a claim. But that doesn't mean they have the right to change what the Holy Spirit has deemed as the "word of God".

[Dravin]

Yet it accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to have determined the canon of Scripture.

No it doesn't. It accepts some of its results, not the same thing.

Edit: On further reflection it would probably be more accurate to say it agrees with some of its conclusions rather then it accepts some of its results. My original comment was kinda rushed.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dravin

[mordorbund]

<Trying to salvage this thread> What apocrypha/psuedopigrapha/whatever have you read that you've found of worth?

I thought some parts of Jasher are interesting, as well as Enoch. They both have a sort of history with our Church. I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff. Infant Gospel of Thomas, anyone? You wanna talk about a different Jesus?! Oh boy!!

Mordorbund, I am responding to your post because it is a clear example of a trend I see here attempting to equate the deuterocanonical books, which were included in the original canon of Sacred Scripture, with the heretical and uncanonized writings such as the "Gospel of Thomas". The so called "apocrypha" was included in the Old Testament scriptures read by Jesus and the Apostles and remained as canonized scripture for 1500 years, before being tossed out by Luther. The "NT stuff" you referred to, was never canonized and is spurious. They should not be talked about as if they are of equivalent theological or moral value or in any way held in the same esteem.

Apologies for not being clearer. I'm aware that "apocrypha" is a specialized term for books found in the Catholic Bible that were removed in the Protestant Bible. I wanted to broaden the discussion past those books as it appeared that most on this forum haven't read them. I tried to make a distinction by admitting that "I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff [that isn't the same as the apocrypha but are still extra-[Protestant-]Biblical texts worthy of study in light of the JS quote shared]." Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I can see how visually grouping apocrypha with pseudopigrapha could lead to that confusion.

And just to nitpick right back at you, the Gospel of Thomas is different from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The first contains the sayings of Jesus (think of a red-letter Bible with the black text removed), while the second tells of Jesus' childhood (and I agree that this particular work is of dubious origins).

Back to the Apocrypha, would you mind sharing some of the stories and doctrines found in the Apocrypha that greatly stick out to you? I read a story in some of Josephus' writings about Alexander the Great coming down to fight Jerusalem, but changing his mind due to some miraculous circumstances. I've wondered if that is found in the Apocrypha, but haven't taken the time to read it yet.

[SteveVH]

Apologies for not being clearer. I'm aware that "apocrypha" is a specialized term for books found in the Catholic Bible that were removed in the Protestant Bible. I wanted to broaden the discussion past those books as it appeared that most on this forum haven't read them. I tried to make a distinction by admitting that "I haven't read any of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but I have read some late NT stuff [that isn't the same as the apocrypha but are still extra-[Protestant-]Biblical texts worthy of study in light of the JS quote shared]." Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I can see how visually grouping apocrypha with pseudopigrapha could lead to that confusion.

And just to nitpick right back at you, the Gospel of Thomas is different from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The first contains the sayings of Jesus (think of a red-letter Bible with the black text removed), while the second tells of Jesus' childhood (and I agree that this particular work is of dubious origins).

Back to the Apocrypha, would you mind sharing some of the stories and doctrines found in the Apocrypha that greatly stick out to you? I read a story in some of Josephus' writings about Alexander the Great coming down to fight Jerusalem, but changing his mind due to some miraculous circumstances. I've wondered if that is found in the Apocrypha, but haven't taken the time to read it yet.

No apologies necessary. I see where you were coming from. Also I was trying to speak in general terms as it might not be clear to some who are not familiar with these books and naturally may assume that they are in the same category.

Actually there is a lot that sticks out to me in the deuterocanonical books, but IMO, 1 & 2 Maccabees are indispensable from a historic point of view, not mention the inspiring stories of of courage, faithfulness and martyrdom. Maccabees also gives us a close look at Jewish beliefs during the century before Christ. There is a belief among many Protestant biblical scholars that there was a period called they call the "400 years of silence", because they do not have the account of the Maccabean revolt. This is actually a very proud moment in Jewish history which is incomplete without it. It is a story of both infidelity and faithfulness.

You are correct about Alexander the Great coming to take Israel, but he was not turned back by any miraculous event. Palestine was occupied by the Persians who were defeated by Alexander in 333 B.C. His conquest spread the Greek culture throughout Palestine and temples to Greek gods began springing up. Alexander died suddenly in 323 B.C. and his kingdom was divided among his generals. Palestine, including Judah, fell under the rule of Ptolemy I, who also had control of Egypt. The Jews were basically free to practice their religion under Ptolemy. The northern Seleucid kingdom, however, conquered Ptolemy and that is where we find the beginning of the Maccabean revolt.

The Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, immediately desecrated the Temple and, under penalty of death, commanded the Jews to forsake their belief in one true God and instead worship pagan gods. He even required them to eat foods forbidden by Jewish law. This guy was incredibly brutal. Anyone caught observing the Sabbath was burned. Families who had circumcised their infants were killed and the babies hung from the mothers' necks.

Some of the Jews gave in to the king's commands and basically turned their backs on Jewish beliefs and practices. But others swore to remain faithful and began a revolt against the king, started by a faithful Jew named Mattathias and his five sons (very inspiring story). Upon the death of Mattathias, his third son Judas Maccabeus, a military commander and strategist, took over leadership. He was successful in defeating the forces of Antiochus IV within three years from the time that Antiochus had begun his rule. Judas Maccabeus rebuilt that which had been torn down, replaced the holy vessels that had been stolen and reconsecrated the Temple. There was a huge celebration which became an annual commemoration of this great event on the 25th day of the month. Today this is known as Hanukkah, which means "to dedicate". 1 Maccabees tells the entire story. 2 Maccabees focuses more on the religious aspects and implications. They should both be read by anyone interested in the complete story of the Jews up to about a century before the time of Christ. You really should check it out.

Edited March 12, 2011 by SteveVH