The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

[trueword]

Have you read it? If so, did it contribute to your understanding of the Old Testament?

[ckxng]

I never have, but if a number of people suggest that they gained some insight from it... that could always change.

[harmonmsp]

It contributed to my understanding of ancient Jewish culture quite a bit. The OT itself? Dont feel strongly enough to say "yes."

[Catholicity]

yes I have. I like it. However it is not considered the pseudopigrapha by Jews or Catholics. The Jewish People call it the Apocrypha as do the Catholics. It is useful for understanding Jewish History and Customs.

[RBerman]

yes I have. I like it. However it is not considered the pseudopigrapha by Jews or Catholics. The Jewish People call it the Apocrypha as do the Catholics. It is useful for understanding Jewish History and Customs.

Actually, the Pseudepigrapha are a different set of books than the Apocrypha. They include:

3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Assumption of Moses
Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch)
Book of Jubilees
Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch)
Letter of Aristeas
Life of Adam and Eve
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Psalms of Solomon
Sibylline Oracles
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch)
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraph)

[Catholicity]

I know what they are. we call them the Apocrypha. The others we use are called the Deuterocanon

[RBerman]

I know what they are. we call them the Apocrypha. The others we use are called the Deuterocanon

I thought the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon were the same thing, this set of books:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
Wisdom
Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:

• Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
• Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
• Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)

1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

[Catholicity]

inside protestant theology the terminology differs. In the Catholic Church Because we refer to the Deuterocanon as Sacred and Divinely inspired. What Proetestants refer to as Apocryphal (and do not consider inspired) we refer to the protestand idea of the pseudopigrepha as the Apocryphal writings because whiel not considered inspired, they are not false rather useful for historical data and rederred to throuought the NT and OT

[Abelard]

I have used 1 Enoch often. Everybody wants to read about Satan's rebellion. It's an important part of our Christian culture even if it is not canonical.

[mikewhitney]

I have used 1 Enoch often. Everybody wants to read about Satan's rebellion. It's an important part of our Christian culture even if it is not canonical.

Can you consider such teaching about Satan and Christian culture useful even if the information taught about Satan is contrary to the sound teaching of scripture?

On the other hand it may be interesting to read Enoch due to the seeming development of Messianic expectation that was documented in such writings. I get the sense that 'Messiah' as a title was a late development within Jewish thought (leading up to the first century).

Beyond that, I have read some analyses about the writings as done in 'Paul, the Law, and the Covenant' by Andrew Das and 'Where is Boasting' by Simon Gathercole. And I have skimmed through 'Wisdom of Solomon' (of the deuterocanonical writings) since it appears to relate to the content of Rom 1:18-32. But the benefit of these writings has more to do with support of esoteric debates on scripture rather than with the actual meaning of scripture.

One thing we have to realize is that these writings mostly formed out of the developing apostasy of Judaism, so historically there has been over reliance on such material during the development of Christian doctrines. It would seem best to first get a strong background in the Protestant canon before dwelving into the unusual writings.

[RBerman]

inside protestant theology the terminology differs. In the Catholic Church Because we refer to the Deuterocanon as Sacred and Divinely inspired. What Proetestants refer to as Apocryphal (and do not consider inspired) we refer to the protestand idea of the pseudopigrepha as the Apocryphal writings because whiel not considered inspired, they are not false rather useful for historical data and rederred to throuought the NT and OT

I see. Thank you for the clarification!

[One Bad Pig]

(Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)

I discovered recently that there are two Hebrew manuscripts of Jeremiah found at Qumran which are equivalent to the text found in the LXX.

I've read more NT pseudepigrapha than OT. I've read most of the Catholic Deuterocanon (which differs slightly from that of the Orthodox).

[Abelard]

Can you consider such teaching about Satan and Christian culture useful even if the information taught about Satan is contrary to the sound teaching of scripture?

On the other hand it may be interesting to read Enoch due to the seeming development of Messianic expectation that was documented in such writings. I get the sense that 'Messiah' as a title was a late development within Jewish thought (leading up to the first century).

Everybody has already heard the stories. Knowing the truth about them is helpful.