You have a great gift of teaching, and I love how you broke all of this down and under nine minutes! It clarified a lot for me. Thank you.

Great video. I was really looking forward to this one. Thank you!!

Love this mini-lecture, Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹⭐

Thanks for bringing this up. Respectfully, there’s much more for you to research. Most significantly, your fundamental standard that a book isn’t inspired if it isn’t mentioned in the NT would mean you don’t think many other books in the OT Protestant Bible aren’t inspired! The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the NT either. There are a few other areas I would refer you to on this issue, including that it is accepted that the Septuagint was the Bible used by our Lord Jesus and the apostles overwhelmingly. That alone doesn’t prove inspiration, but it should give pause to us all to choose to use the Bible without the books they had, and that the Church used for 1500 years before one man led a movement to remove them, alongside his effort to remove James, Hebrews and Revelation as not inspired in his opinion! I know the Church would not have changed the canon because of his efforts, but what if he had been successful in convincing other newly formed Protestants to also remove those books from their New Testament versions!! Amen that he wasn’t successful in that effort. Peace and God Bless. Thank you for the interesting and helpful work you do regarding Bible versions and translations. Your love for bibles is inspirational!

Keep up the great work brother these educational videos are awesome

So, I believe that the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals are inspired witnesses to the tradition of the Church, but I do not think they have the same level of authority in the Orthodox Church as the protocanonical books. We don't take the Wisdom of Solomon, for example, as the words of Solomon. We don't pray for the departed because of 2 Maccabees, but 2 Maccabees is a good witness to why we do it, if that makes sense. Also, "canonicity" has a slightly different meaning in the Orthodox Church. For something to be canonical just means that it is prescribed to be read as Scripture in the Church, but all the books are read on their own terms and with the authority that is inherent in them. Whereas for non-Orthodox, "canonical" sort of sets the limits for what forms the basis of doctrine. That's not how we work, because we have a sort-of "open" concept of revelation.

Very good stuff Tim!

Tim, this was helpful for me. I like that you approached in a balanced and loving way. A good takeaway for me-the apocrypha mixed in with the OT runs the danger of confusing it with the inspired Word. Separately it is fine for reading. Thanks for the breakdown.

It helps to keep in mind that even though the Masoretes were Hebrew scholars, they also rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah. There are many quotes from the Septuagint in the New Testament, such as Isaiah 7:14, quoted by Matthew in Matt. 1:23, " Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel." The Septuagint uses the word virgin, but the Hebrew Bible uses the words, young woman. The only thing close to a reference to the Apocryphal books that I know of in the New Testament is in Heb. 11:35 where it reads, " Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." I have an old Cambridge KJV which does not include the Apocrypha, but at Heb. 11:35, in the center column references, it gives as a direct reference for that verse 2nd Maccabees 6:10-31. There may be other references to the Apocrypha in the New Testament that I just haven't noticed yet. We do know that for the most part, the Bible that was used in the days of Christ and the early church was the Septuagint, which did include the Apocrypha or for some it would be called the Deuterocanonical books.

Apocrypha is not inspired, but Deuterocanon is.

Just read them it wouldn't hurt you, Martin Luther printed it in his translation also the Geneva Bible 1599 and KJV 1611 had them included.

I think, if they're going to include the Apocrypha, it should be between the two Testaments, since that's what the Apocrypha covers anyway. I also think all Bible should include a section on the Intertestamental period, so people can have an idea of the events that happened in the 400 years that led to the New Testament.

In general, a decent overview. However, the “Apocrypha” is NOT what is in the Catholic Bible. The Apocrypha is 14 different books. The Catholic Bible has 7 Deuterocanonical texts. It is probably important to make that distinction.

The question needs to be asked: Was the fact that particular old testament books were or were not quoted a criteria when the original councils chose which should be included? The answer is no. The books were chosen based first and foremost on Apostolic use. The Apostles used the Septuagint. Another criterion is usage within the Apostolically founded churches. The books used in those churches were then used in new parishes as they were established. Third: did the writing reflect the faith as taught by the Apostles? Fourth: in the case of the new testament, were those writings written by an apostle or someone who accompanied the apostles? As far as quoting the old testament, books that are never quoted from the Old testament in the New Testament are Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah. If you want to make quotations the criteria, then you must remove these books.

I'm not sure "it's not quoted in the New Testament" is that great an argument. I believe there are other OT books, which are accepted in the Protestant canon, which are not quoted in the NT. I'd have to research which ones, it's been a while, but I'm pretty darn sure there are.

Cambridge publishes a King James that includes the apocrypha, but of course as a separate section like Luther had it.

The Holy Catholic Church determined the 73 books in the modern Bible. The 7 books on question are: Tobit, Judith, Baurch, Wisdom, Sirach, Macabees 1 and 2. These 73 books were included in the Latin Vulgate for centuries prior to Martin Luther rejecting them. These 7 books are inspired. The Holy Catholic Church rejected several other books. The Holy Church went through an exhaustive analysis in determining what books are inspired and which ones were not. If it wasn't for the Holy Catholic Church, there would be no bible today. The Holy Church protected the Holy Bible and perserved them in the monasteries in Europe during the dark ages. These 7 books were accepted by all Christians for centuries before the Refirmation when Martin Luther rejected these 7 books.

Three things really broke my rejection of Apocrypha. 1. Jude quotes I Enoch explicitly as Scripture. This isn't how Paul quotes pagan poets, or the Psalms quote the Baal Cycle. Prophecy is inpsired by definition. I have never heard a good explanation of this that includes denying its inspration. I've heard that it's not from I Enoch, only that passage is inspired, it's not a quotation at all, it's just a literary reference, and lots of others. This is the litmus test I use on the quotations argument: if the person doesn't accept I Enoch as Scripture and relies on the quotations argument, then I want to know a why that doesn't involve a category error ("The Bible quotes lots of books..."), extreme exception arguments, or rejection that he quoted I Enoch. That means that books outside the Bible could be inspired. This holds true for most of the patristic three-tiered lists. Almost every author of a canon list quotes a book as inspired that he doesn't list as canonical. That wide a variety means that they did not mean by it what Luther or anyone subsequent meant. This isn't limited to books of the Apocrypha. Athanasius, rather famously, said the Shepherd of Hermas is profitable and good to read. It's a book claiming to be prophecy. A work by a man claiming to be a prophet cannot be good unless it is inspired. False prophecy is a serious sin. If the Shepherd is not inspired, it cannot be good. It should be condemned. 2. Most of the justifications of rejecting it aren't true. You mention the Council of Jamnia. It never happened. I looked for almost a year for primary sources. There are none. The story was fabricated in the 19th century from the fact that there was a school of Jamnia, but it would take hundreds of years for the rabbinic Bible to normalize. There wasn't a cessation of prophecy. Even the birth prologue of Luke puts a damper on that with the Prophetess Anna. Josephus lists John Hyrcanus as a prophet king. There wasn't a determination at the Council of Ezra. That's a story that comes much later than the NT. Jesus couldn't refer to the closing of the Hebrew Bible with Chronicles; that order of books wouldn't exist for hundreds of years. The "facts" invariably are falsehoods, and I started to feel lied to. I still do. I had to leave Protestantism, because I would have to lie myself once I knew these things were false. 3. I came to the conclusion if the Apocrypha falls, so should the NT. In your scenario of the Bible being determined in AD 90, then Christ doesn't have all the authority he claimed. Christ said "all authority," not "some" was given to him. Earlier he outlined how he would give it to his followers. The rabbis actively rejected and condemned Christ. The authority they had went with Jesus, and they no longer had it. If we push the canonization to the second century, it gets tied up with an antichrist, bar Kokhba. These authorities rejected the Gospels and the Apocrypha, sometimes in the same breath, and there is no reason to believe that they can still make inspired (it must be inspired) and authoritative (they must have authority) declarations over Scripture, and if they can that it doesn't include the NT. In the scenario I hear most often, it was already determined at the council of Ezra. In that scenario, the Christians received an already made canon, and they *still* couldn't get right what books were in it. If they couldn't get that right, then I have no reason to trust that they got anything right on the NT, because they had considerably less to work with. Jerome fell into this category. He doesn't have to contend with Christ not having all authority, but he did have to contend with questions on the NT. However, it's not abundantly clear that wasn't still an open question in his day. We are not in that position today. Today we have a NT that was settled by people who got the OT wrong. In either case, I feel the NT falls. The main reason it hasn't resulted in that is for the same reason I Enoch was never added. The reasons given are justification for positions already held. They aren't the reasons for adopting the position. However, if I became convinced the Apocrypha isn't inspired, and the problems above are not resolved, it would mean the entire Bible falls for me.

I agree with you. I think this video is spot on. I think the years between the testaments are called silent for reason. God was not talking for a reason. That being said I like the history of the Jews and what contributed to their conditions that Christ came into. That being said I believe God made sure the Bible came together the way he wanted it to be. 2nd Peter 1: 20-21. The Holy Spirit saw to it. That's what I believe and why I believe it.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explains, 66 The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had wide currency, there is no evidence to support it. It looks like Jamnia never existed? Unfortunately at the time Jerome was asked to translate the Bible to Latin, Jerome was a translator he had no authority to decide what was considered canonical. Early Christians used the Septuagint, so it makes sense that’s the Old Testament they would approve would be in Greek, as a fact even Greek was beginning to loose favoritism that’s why it was translated in Latin. At the end who cares what the Rabbinic/ Pharisees used, they were responsible for Jesus death, did they approve of the New Testament, did they have to approve it. According to the New tests we have no quotes from : Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes. Should we remove them too?

Very interesting. I've been looking for a Bible with the apocrypha to read. The Protestant position was that they were good and useful for history, reading, etc. but not for learning doctrine.

When you mention the apocrypha, which books are you referring to? The apocrypha books included in the Roman Catholic Bible? Or the apocrypha books included in other orthodox churches? The Apocrypha that was included in the septuagint is it the same books that were included in Jerome's translation?

My view is, not inspired. But useful for historical context and instruction

According to your litmus test, many other books are not inspired, such as Esther, Chronicles, Ruth, etc. etc. How do you tackle with that?

They are inspired. But even the Orthodox do not attribute the same level of inspiration to them as the 39 books in the Hebrew Scriptures. Anglicans hold the same view. They are, therefore, profitable for spiritual edification, but not for doctrine. I, personally, like the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. There is a lot of beneficial material in them. And the more I read them, especially Sirach and Wisdom, I see many passages that could very well have been alluded to by the NT writers. I also think they should be placed between the Testaments because that's where they fit chronologically.

It's been more than 25 years since I last heard "Council of Jamnia." For thos who may not know, the existence of the Council of Jamnia was first proposed in the mid-18th century. There is no clear evidence that Jewish leadership held a specific council where the OT canon was settled once and for all. The Roman Catholics had one (the Council of Trent) -- but not the Jews.

Sorry, one other point that someone once said for those undecided on this issue- If you had the choice to use an OT version that had the same books that Jesus and the Apostles used, or a version that Martin Luther and others created with fewer books, which would you choose?

I'm surprised you decided to weigh in on the topic just right after a few days ago you did a Catholic Study Bible review I admire your courage though.

Shouldn't each book be considered individually?

The orthodox church bibles and oxford annotated include apocrypha. 151

I don't mind when some argue that it is inspired (which I disagree) but I always found it strange that growing up RCC, those books were rarely discussed, quoted, or taught from. They were only brought up when the inspired argument came up.

The testimony of Josephus confirms that the Jews accepted 22 (which is our 39) books of the Old Testament as canonical: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." - Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, Section 8

As an old confession Lutheran I also read them, but it's not inspired by God.

It may not be inspired, but what is "inspired" anyways? Do you think the information within those particular books are false? I have not noticed anything in Enoch or Jasher that directly contradict the inspired books. And what does someone have to gain from falsifying a book like these? I am inclined to believe them, especially Jasher, but that might be my bias. Jasher is a really cool book filled with stories that feel like a modern day fantasy show. And there are many cool flavor additions added, like the origin of the first Pharaoh, how the sons of Jacob were able to defeat hundreds of people single highhandedly, and how many days it took to walk across the Tower of Babel or how many years it took to climb to the top. Such a cool book, and there are many more cool bits like that to find in the book of Jasher. Jubilees is a bit like Numbers or Deuteronomy. More about the rules than the historical events. Enoch contains a bit of stories, mostly about the Watchers and Nephilim And also a bit of the workings of the world and the heavens, and a little bit of "don't be evil, or else" The second book of Enoch gets really nuts with the origin of creation and the different levels of heaven. Another really cool book which are not in the Bible or event he Apocrypha, is the book of Adam and Eve. Well, there are 2 of them but the first one is the better of the two, and it describes what life was like after being exile from Eden. Now I am not sure about the legitimacy of this book, but the other books seem legit since they were included in the bible and even quoted.

1. Are you aware there are several canonical Old Testament books that aren't directly quoted or referenced by Jesus? 2. Strong evidence St. Jerome actually later changed his mind, and also he said to follow the Pope and the Church in everything.

My view is irrelevant as I do not have the authority to make such a determination. It is the Church who has the authority to decide, no one else.

The Septuagint was made specifically for the library of Alexandria. Which had the aim of collecting all knowledge of the world as it was known then. It’s aim was never to hellenise the Jews

NT does not quote from Esther and Song of Songs either. Not being quoted directly like deuterocanonical books, Esther and Song of Songs, is not valid reason to reject their inspiration. Being quoted directly like 1 Enoch (which you mentioned in the video) is not valid reason to consider it to be inspired. We do not know which Scripture is referred in John 7:38 and James 4:5 - both proceeded with the phrase "Scripture says". There is no single verse in the entire Bible that tells us how many and which books belong to Scripture. The so-called canon of Scripture (list of inspired books) must be determined by the authority outside Scripture. The Jews did not close their canon in Jesus' time - if they did then NT will cite only from those books, which is not the case. In the first four centuries or so Christians unanimously agreed on inspiration state of 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT. Esther and deuterocanonical books were disputed and so were 7 books of NT (2 Pe, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). Jerome referred them as apocrypha while Augustine did not - Augustine list of inspired books included them.

Does that mean that you don't consider Ezra or Nehemiah or the Song of Solomon inspired, since they are not quoted in the New Testament?

You're more generous than I am. I actually think they should only be in their own separate volume, and not in a copy of the Bible.

Don’t forget, the Good News Bible also has the Apocrypha.

Uninspired or inspired isn't that simple. Some books, like Bel & The Dragon and Susanna were once just Daniel chapters 13 and 14. The Additions to Esther are informative and actually have ELohim (G-o-d) in them. There's nothing wrong with The Wisdom of Solomon; although some of the information in Sirach is earthy and 'ot' customs. Tobit and Judith are just folklore, and I only remember one suspect verse when reading the Esdras.' But, the book that should absolutely be a part of the canon is 1 Maccabees. It's the only one of the four Maccabees written in Hebrew and it contains very necessary historical info of what was going on for a couple of hundred years. The canon never gets into the prophecy of the four-headed leopard; it just goes from Persian to Roman occupation, with an unexplained Greek culture mixed in all the sudden. So, definitely 1Maccabees needs to be in there. While the Book of 1Enoch is eye-opening, I don't believe it's the same one that Jude quoted from; Noah's physical description is a big fantastical giveaway; and the other books of Enoch are complete trash. I also don't think the Book of Jasher is the same one that the 'ot' encourages us to read; There's too many nonsensical things in it, like Moses only being 18 when he left Egypt and him forming an army against them.

Very informative videos on the Apocrypha, Tim. Thank you. It might also be helpful to create a video that describes the differences between Apocrypha versions and the books each contain. And no, I do not believe the Apocrypha is inspired, but it does make for some interesting reading.

The question I have trouble with is, Christ said the father had granted him all authority, Christ granted that authority to his apostles before he ascended into heaven and he gave his apostles authority to pass it down to their successors. Those successors, on Christs authority assembled the Bible. Who the heck is Martin Luther, to come along and single handedly remove books??? Who gave him authority to do that? The answer is nobody. The only thing Luther succeeded in doing was fracturing Christs church into a thousand denominations and breaking the chain of authority that Christ founded through his church, the Catholic Church, which was the ONLY church for 1,500 years after Christ ascended.

What about Hanukkah most Jews celebrate it even though it's not in the Hebrew canon but it's historical fact in I and II Macabees. And Hanukkah is mentioned in the New Testament. And also Jude like you mentioned the angel fighting satan over the body of Moses in the Assumption of Moses (though this isn't in the Apocrypha).

🙏 ‭‭Jude 1:14-15 KJV‬‬ [14] And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, [15] to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Enoch 1:9 [9] And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. Book of Enoch ✅

I believe that the Apocryphal books are not inspired, as you said, and also that they are books for the early church.

If these books are inspired, it's at a more general level, i.e. they are not fully prophetic or infallible. Still, they are the books that have been designated to be read alongside the canon. In that sense, they're part of the Bible.

Ive never read them

Yes interesting; possibly controversial.

The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the New Testament either, does that make them not scripture? Esther and Song of Solomon don't even mention God and Song of Solomon, if taken literally, is erotic poetry.

Apocrypha not inspired. Should be separate volume. Loved the video.

Actually the High priests were already kicked out of Jeru salem by the pharasies and sacasies (these 2 groups were not in old testament) the high priests in charge of Canon and coping canon and preserving canon were the son's of zadok. (Ezekiel 43:19. You shall give to the priests the Levites who are of the seed of Zadok, who are near to me, to minister to me, says the Lord the LORD, a young bull for a sin offering.) so when they got kicked out the authority of the canon got kicked out with them. So in recap, pharasies do not than canon authority, sacaseies do not have canon authority, the Son's of Zadok have the canon authority after they got kicked out they went to the dessert area in qumran, called bethalbara at the time, there is a building there right where it should be which is where they got exiled. This is where they ate honey and locusts, this is where the 'dead sea scrolls were found, this is where the ashs of the 9 preseading red heafers was found needed to recleans new instruments if a third temple is to be build, this is where john the baptist was from, they actually prophesied that the forerunner of the massiah was to come from them, and he did and Yahusa went there to be baptized and guess what the old testament cannon was different than ours today let that sink in......even books in our old testment are not found in john the baptists library such as ester, but other books considered aporapha are also no such as the macabees, to be clear the high priests biblically in charge of keeping the old testament had other books even considered torah truly we have been lied to.

Sirach: a guy found his dead grandpa's writings and published them. That's not even scripture, let alone canon.

The quick answer is no

No I don’t see why you would want to include something that isn’t the word of God in the word of God… The point of the Bible is for us to learn how to have a relationship with God- how he operates, his promises, his history with mankind, what he wants us to know, what will happen in the future, what happens when we die. Anything that he didn’t say is antithetical to that mission. I am curious to read it but what we choose to read or listen to easily becomes what we believe. And if God didn’t say it could very well be lies and could lead us astray!

Very outdated information

Not all of the Apocrypha was originally written in Greek. The wisdom of Sirach was originally written in hebrew. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Sirach