What Do You Think? – The Apocrypha

• Jenglander

Love to hear your thoughts on this one!…Ok, so this one sort of morphed out of a thread on one of Lene’s recent blogs. And from there, viola! Houston, we have a blog post!

So the paradox goes like this….

First the 30,000 foot view:

If the Apocrypha was considered to be included in the Word for over a thousand years and then it was removed for part of the church (namely the Protestant church), what logical consequences does that have for how we view the Word and the Holy Spirit’s organizational actions on the church?

Now for some caveats:

  • There was some continual disagreement over the centuries over the canonicity of the Apocrypha, from the 4th century AD into the 16th century AD at the Council of Trenth
  • Jerome and Augustine presented differing views on the OT apocryphal books. Jerome, along with others like Origen, viewed the canon as only the Hebrew Bible, while Augustine viewed the canon as the Septuagint. We’re getting a little messy here, because well, both of these men were giants of the church. So I’m not walking to a conclusion that one of them was inherently spiritually flawed.
  • The Protestant canon split was on similar lines, going the way of only the Masoretic Text instead of the LXX (Septuagint)

Here’s my logical knot that I’d love to get undone:

  • The Word is God – John 1:1
  • God does not change – Malachi 3:6
  • The Apocryphal books were generally considered to be canon by much of the church for a thousand years.
  • Why would the Holy Spirit include some books as part of his Word for 1000 years, then when the church split he allowed some of the canon (Apocrypha) to be changed for some Christians (Protestants)?
  • If you’re Protestant, you have to admit here that the Word is God and that he is unchanging. How is it that people who were saved and are home with Christ right now truly believed the Apocrypha was the Word of God during their lives and probably got good things out of it, probably being built up spiritually in Christ? I’m assuming the Spirit spoke to them through it.
  • If you a Catholic, you have to admit here that the Spirit is sovereign and that his Word is going to be preserved. Also there are many Protestants who are home with God right now as well, for whom the Spirit spoke to them through all of the Word, even without the Apocrypha.
  • Does the Spirit give us so much free will that he allows even parts of his Word to be altered or up for discussion for changes? How does he judge that in light of Revelation 22:19 (applying this verse as inclusive of the entire Word; though the context is just Revelation here)? Is this simply a heart question…a 10th century Catholic who was taught the Apocrypha was the Word from birth versus a 21st century Protestant who was taught the Protestant canon was the Word from birth, but both have the same heart to pursue Christ and learn his Word…does it matter? What’s the impact on the heart with Christ?

I believe there are good Christians in both Protestant and Catholic churches – disclaimer, I am Protestant and I do get a little squeamish at some Catholic theology, but that is a discussion outside of the scope of this post. Also, if you hold to the theory that the 7 churches are historically spread out, then generally the medieval Catholic church is considered to be Thyatira, while the Reformation church was Sardis – which ironically the bad points of Sardis was that it was dead spiritually.

7-churches-in-chart-form1-e1338397806865

 

This really isn’t meant to be a Catholic vs Protestant post. Instead it’s trying to understand God’s will and movements in the church across history. My conclusions are:

  • There were strong followers of Christ through all of these time periods, in both the Catholic and Protestant churches
  • The Word of God is the Bible and is God.
  • The Spirit spoke to his children through the Bible for all of his believers in every church and time period.
  • For some reason, for some Christians it’s ok for them to consider the Apocrypha as Scripture. For others, it’s not ok for them to consider the Apocrypha as Scripture. My question is: why would the Spirit allow that to happen? Or better…what was his will in doing this, or allowing this, and why?
  • All of this in the vein of simply trying to understand him better

Let me know what you think!

Blessings!
Joel

 

42 thoughts on “What Do You Think? – The Apocrypha”

  1. Considering the meaning of the word in Greek, I think it is highly suspicious already. And, since presently, we cannot actually appreciate the full scope of the enormous task and the process of seeking God over the texts in the Bible, I am not sure it easy for anyone to grasp regardless of theological study.

    2 Peter 3:16 comes to mind. And, Proverbs 3:5-6. It is so simple, yet so important, lest we get distracted and take our eyes off of the simplicity of who Christ is and the blessing of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Because, we can get so caught up in theological and historical diagnosis that we miss out on the most important thing: Isaiah 9:6.

    These days, I often ask myself, regarding many topics, “Is chasing this knowledge going to lead to a deeper experience of God? Am I at risk of allowing myself to come under false teaching/false knowledge by exposing myself to something that the Holy Spirit may not want me to be exposed to? Could I be a stumbling block to someone and inadvertently mislead them?”

    I often feel there is a reason the Apocrypha is not there, just as there is a reason the Gnostic texts are not there.

    Here is one reading I came across: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Those are good verses for this topic! I like your thoughts here! We never want to get distracted off Christ and worshiping him in our daily lives.

      For me, it’s not so much a heart issue with the Apocrypha, or a stumbling block, it’s more just a curiosity. Just as I’m curious about Greek and Hebrew and various other things. I do find it interesting that there are many Christians who do believe it is part of Scripture, but I don’t believe it is because of where I grew up in the church. I definitely agree that the topic is a very high level question, while requiring in depth historical and theological knowledge to fully vet out. And who knows, maybe then it still wouldn’t be crystal clear.

      On the etymology of the blanket name “apocrypha” I found a good wiki on the history of it…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha and then go down to “examples” and “other”…I’ve actually read that article before. It makes some good points. Some stuff in Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Sirach) makes me uncomfortable as well. But then again, I ask myself, why is it acceptable as part of the Word for some other believers? Not sure there is a good answer, or obvious one, outside of sitting down at Jesus’ feet one day and listening to him explain out the history on this one.

      I could see answers on this one ranging from something like: he pulled it for mostly Anglican and to-be American people because they would have a higher conversion ratio, to something like: he delegated partial authority to his people for the preservation of the Word and somehow that got messed up for a millennia until the Reformation. If that’s true, I find it interesting, and a tad odd, that somebody like Augustine would be leading the charge there early on. Or it could be something totally different!

      It’s definitely a mystery!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Lol sorry I meant to say I had read the website on the apocrypha you first posted before! http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm and that the quotes they gave from Ecclesiasticus make me uncomfortable. They just don’t jive with other parts of Scripture in my opinion, which is a good reason why they might be excluded.

      I know, I’m excited to hear God teach and explain all of these mysteries one day! That’s one class I’m taking notes in!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I was interested in the Apocrypha the first time I saw a catholic Bible and wanted to know why there was a “catholic Bible” and then “a Bible”. I have an extremely curious nature, so I have to tell myself to proceed with caution many times. That’s why I mentioned those questions. You’d be surprised how easily I can complicate something.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Haha! No its ok, I complicate things too! I think it’s good process to think a matter through that we are curious on, which the curiosity doesn’t raise warning bells from the Spirit. There is a seemingly Neverending stream of data and theory in the world, some of which can be useful for building us up. Most of which is not.

        It reminds me of Proverbs 25:2 too 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, I just needed to put it so simply and not think so hard!! I think that is why I have to ask myself all of those questions I mentioned to Joel, because I can so easily start complicating things. 😀

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  4. Oh dear oh dear… This is such a huge question – high level as you say – and I still vividly remember our conversation in the comments on my blog post (which had 0 to do with the apocrypha…). I wonder if we will ever truly know why the Spirit allowed or caused the apocrypha to be taken out, but there is a reason for it.
    Personally, I still believe it had something to do with spreading the gospel – the protestants fled Europe in search of a better life and away from persecution from the Catholic church and thus, America was born. This, of course, is history boiled down to an absolute minimum and I’m sure many historians can offer a multitude of explanations for the migration to the US (among others the famine in Scotland etc). But aside from that, I don’t have much to offer
    I do know that persecution isn’t a Jesus thing… so as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord with the book I have been given, which does not contain the apocrypha, but plenty to study and learn and live by – and (as I’m still an old-fashioned gal) work up some muscle while carrying around my brick of a Bible 😉
    Hope everyone will have a blessed day.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. Interesting questions, and ironically I actually researched this very recently. No time to get into it deeply right now, but here area couple of the places where I did some research:

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm

    The book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek touches on it as well. In short, what I understand is that the apocryphal writings were all written in the pre-Christ era and were considered “curiosities” but never accepted in the Jewish canonical Tanakh although they provide some literary insight to Jewish thought of the time. Apparently, some in the early Roman Catholic church did incorporate them, but recall that the populace was largely illiterate at that time. They were not “officially” canonized by the RCC until the Council of Trent, but since the Jewish people never accepted them as canonical, many protestants also rejected them on that evidence plus other things which I can’t get into.

    All in all, it seems that they have always been somewhat controversial in the Christian church, but so were the selling of indulgences, etc. (An excellent book to provide insight on the events leading up to Martin Luther’s famous 95 theses is Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly. Secular, but an excellent historical read and can provide some insight on the mentality of the time in context to the Church).

    Personally, I have read the Apocryphal writing known as Bel and the Snake, and it had a very different tone and quality than the book of Daniel (although purportedly about the same people, etc.). I can’t remember right now, but it may have even been contradictory in some places.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. That’s interesting about Judaic culture pre-Christ considering them to be outside the Tanakh but we’re curiosities. I hadn’t done my homework in that time period so that’s interesting to know.

      Some thing that would be really interesting to understand then is what were Augustine’s thoughts on using the LXX in the first place. I’ll check out those sites for reference.

      Check these sites out too…i think there was a lot more variability in the early canon. Maria’s post here is pretty good.

      https://pilgrimsprogressrevisted.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/the-bible-inspired-whatever-the-language/

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. This is so interesting! We got so focused on why it was taken out that we forgot why it was put in. Makes me kind of wonder if God allowed it to be put in, so that He could take it out in His timing… Hmm…

        Liked by 2 people

      2. #onfire Lene!! That’s the kind of question I’ve been searching for! What if he did that, allowed it to be put in, so he could take it out later? That’s pretty good!

        Why would he do that?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Why would He do that?
        – My guess would be; The Reformation. Not in itself, but the reaction that came: The RCC persecuted the protestants and when persecution comes chasing our tails; We either scatter or die. So during this time, people grabbed their protestant Bibles and fled Europe. Taking the gospel with them.

        There’s one thing that lingers with me. The apocrypha was written pre-Christ era and Jesus was Jewish. Yet, it was not a part of the Tanakh so Jesus wouldn’t have read it as scripture… right? But He would have read what we know as the OT, wouldn’t He?

        God always have multiple reasons for doing one thing, so I bet there’s much more to this, but this is the only way I can make any sense of WHY the Lord would allow the apocrypha to be included in the RCC bibles.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. You’re bringing the heat on the questions Lene! I have no idea what Jesus read as Scripture, but I would love to see that list. Because that for me would solidify it. Whatever he read, I’m reading. Seriously. Like if he had something else in there, or something that’s in there now that he wasn’t reading then, I’m making those changes. I just want to be reading the Word as Jesus read it in the OT. But I can’t confirm or deny that the Apocrypha wasn’t apart of what was scripture that Jesus read.

        I think you’re getting closer on the historical answer. Though I think there would need to be more explanation as to why the cultural significance about the Apocrypha, why doesn’t it work with Protestants? What’s wrong there that the Spirit allowed that to happen?

        I bet there are multiple reasons for this. I like that you are really thinking out of the box on this one, and I think that’s where our answer may lie. Here’s another out of the box question: What if God delegated part of the responsibility for the protection of the Word to man, and what if man just messed it up…whether by initially including the apocrypha or by leaving it out? Either way, the core of the Gospel and OT are still ‘intact’ right?

        There are things in Ecclesiasticus (aka Wisdom of Sirach) that make me uncomfortable…on the other side, there are things in that same book I like a lot, also in Wisdom that I really like. I’m not saying it’s Scripture, but if it was, I think some of it really jives.

        Logically, I think there are two steps here: the first step to getting a solid canon list would be to get a good understand of what was truly considered canon when Jesus was on earth; ie what did he really read? I’ve seen a lot of arguments of what he read, even that he read Enoch (which I’m not entirely sure of). But let’s get something conclusive. So that would first. The second step would be to answer the more broad historical question of: why did what happened with the canon be allowed to happen? And what was God’s will and motivation behind what was allowed to happen/or caused to happen (it could be either, or both)?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Why doesn’t the apocrypha work with protestants..? Well… mmm… Don’t have a clue, but am wondering if it might have something to do with protestants actually reading their own Bibles.

        God delegating part of the responsibility of protecting the Word??? Joel, seriously??… Man has always and will always, until we are all restored with Jesus in heaven, mess things up and God has always known that. We couldn’t be trusted in the garden, would God trust us with His Word? I can’t imagine… that’s way beyond my box.

        I’m going to ask Sue about what Jesus read when He walked the face of the earth. Just possibly she has some good thoughts on that or know someone who does.

        On my way to bed… trust you have a lovely french press 😉 G’nyte

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Lol Lene! C’mon friend, this already happened before. So badly that the Israelites lost it once for years, and they lost it in the temple out of all places! Until Hilkiah found it and gave it to Josiah. I think God’s definitely entrusted us with his Word, but with the caveat that he is the overriding Master of protecting the Word and I think he will not let it be corrupted or destroyed from the earth. How far he takes managing mastering it and delegating to humanity is a different conversation, which probably gets pretty deep into free will.

        I don’t know, this one might just go back into that gray box of items I don’t have an answer to. One other thing, I might ask my Greek tutor about it. He’s really grounded in the Word and would have some good knowledge on the background here, plus the canon Jesus would have read. Let me know what Sue think too!

        I’m on my way to work. Had ad great press! Just got done with Starbucks with a friend. Good stuff, super cold here today! Brrrr!!! Later friend!

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Oh goodness – how could I possibly forget that!! Sorry friend… my heart can admittedly still not quite understand why the Lord would entrust us with the responsibility. Perhaps I’m hoping for “care taking” rather than “responsible” if that makes sense to you. Yahweh has the final word… always.

        I’d love to hear what your Greek tutor has to say! I asked Sue and I just love her reply! Nothing is black and white and I was a bit surprised by it, but it’s very interesting! I’ll post her reply as a comment.

        Morning Starbucks? Goodness, you’re Blessed!!

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Today I’m meeting my dad for coffee at a really nice coffeehouse, probably the best one we have in our city. It’s pretty eclectic, but the coffee is roasted in house and some of the best I’ve had. I’ll need it to stay warm, suuuuuuper cold today!!

        I think you’re spot on friend…’Care taking’ is probably a much more accurate phrase to use there. Let me read through Sue’s response that you posted and i’ll respond. We have our Greek Skype lesson Saturday and I’ll bring it up to him to see what his thoughts are. But yes, definitely, Yahweh always has the final say!

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Good stuff! I like what she had on Hanukkah. I think the reference that he may have celebrated it is John 10:22-23, where it is called the Festival of Dedication. She has some beautiful thoughts on the Shamash there imaging Jesus and the Spirit spreading light to his people. Good stuff!!

        I am not sure which Catholic Bibles she was referring to that segregate the apocrypha to the back. I do have a Catholic Bible at home, I have a couple of them, and they do not segregate the Apocrypha from the rest. Specifically the NJB. They integrate it with the OT. So does the RSV and NRSV. (Interesting fact: one of the translators for the original JB, Jerusalem Bible, was JRR Tolkein!)

        I’m excited to get started with Hanukkah, or better the Festival of Dedication. It will be fun to have it start on Christmas 🙂 Latkes here we come!!

        Cold day again here! I’m headed out for coffee in a bit and some Greek 🙂

        Like

      11. When it comes to Catholic Bibles, I’m at a complete loss. I don’t own one and am not likely to. Perhaps the early prints of it had the apocrypha in the back… or not. No clue and I’m not really sure it’s important. The RCC does not encourage believers to read on their own, so not sure it would matter anyway.

        Interesting – I didn’t know Tolkien translated the JB..!

        I have a crazy headache, so will leave the Enoch and your other comment for later (and your email)… Sorry friend. I hope you have a great Sunday!

        Liked by 1 person

      12. I had a really good text exchange with my Greek tutor Travis on this one. I mean it was fantastic and I think he’s solidified more of my position that the Apocrypha isn’t the Word. It is important spiritual literature, up there with other good works produced in the church, but it’s not canon. His reasoning was that essentially the process of understanding what is the canon is done through reception. Or as he worded it, ‘the process of reception [from the church universal] clarifies what God inspired.’ And since the apocrypha weren’t, it’s not the Word. Because the Spirit will guide the church in forcing convergence on what the true Word. PS got a link to his blog on my latest post if you ever want to check his stuff out. The guy is a genius.

        Liked by 1 person

      13. Thanks for sharing friend.
        I haven’t forgotten our thread here. But I haven’t been entirely well the past days, so I’m opting out and getting some rest. I’ll be back. Blessings to you friend!

        Liked by 1 person

      16. Sue is a dear friend and very much devoted to Torah. Put simply: I trust her because I know Y’shua has worked through her to reach me.
        This is her reply to my question “What books would Y’shua have read while He walked the face of the earth”:

        In Luke 24:44, Y’shua is quoted as saying, ““This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” These were exactly the words that were used in His time to refer to what we call the Scriptures or the Old Testament today.
        The word translated as “the law” is the word ‘nomos’ and always refers to the 613 commands of the first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. We can be confident that these were the books that Y’shua was referring to for a number of different reasons. We have many, many manuscripts of these books (even from His time and well before) and they agree with one another in all respects – there were not different ‘versions’ of these books available. In fact, the primary copy was kept at the Temple in Jerusalem and all authorized copies had to agree with that particular copy, or they had to be destroyed.
        The Septuagint is the Greek version of these books. It was written 250-300 years before Y’shua was born, and it is the version normally quoted in the Greek epistles of the New Testament. It, too, very obviously and unquestionably was translated from the original Hebrew of the scriptures we have today.
        Y’shua also referred to “The Prophets.” These were the same books we have today (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, etc), but they MAY have included some other books. For example, Y’shua teaches doctrines that are found in detail only in the Book of 1Enoch, and Jude also quotes the Book of 1Enoch. The Book of Jasher also seems to have been accepted as a reliable reference. In addition, several ‘histories’ are referred to in the Scriptures. We have most of these histories, but there are a couple that are referred to that we do not seem to have any longer. Thankfully they appear to have included information that is also found in I/II Kings and I/II Chronicles, so we aren’t missing much.
        In Y’shua’s day, the term “The Psalms” referred to the rest of the books (called “writings”) – not just the Psalms. Song of Solomon was included in this collection, as were the Books of Ruth and Esther, etc.
        In general we are satisfied that the Biblical books we know in our modern OT are the same books that Y’shua knew and studied. We believe that there were a couple of other books (particularly 1Enoch and Jasher) that He and the people of His time also considered important. (For example, 1Enoch is still canonical to the oldest surviving ‘primitive Christian’ denomination in Ethiopia.)
        Be warned, however, that there were MANY different ‘Christian’ sects which varied wildly in their beliefs, and each had its own ‘canonical’ books – some of them are pretty outrageous and outlandish, while others may actually merit some respect. So far, I have not found any besides 1Enoch that I would consider ‘inspired’ however (not even Jasher, which is actually more of a history than a book of instruction).
        Y’shua was probably aware of and may have read The Books of the Maccabees. They are decent histories, but they also include material that is less than reliable. Y’shua never makes reference to any material found in these books, so I suspect that He dismissed them as ‘secular’ and of no importance.
        Other writings that Yeshua would have been familiar with were the Targums (OT books with commentary by sages). You can learn more about them in Wikipedia. They can be very fascinating, as the commentary reveals how people interpreted and viewed the scriptures in the centuries before Y’shua. Y’shua often says something along the line of “You have heard it said….” In these statements, He is quite possibly referring to the Targums, which were widely respected teaching tools and were carefully studied in the schools and taught in the synagogues.
        Although many Hebrew Roots people resist the Talmud (aka Oral Torah), we are learning from the OT itself that there really was an Oral Torah given to Moses along with the written Torah. Much of the modern Talmud is additional to (and distracts from) the original Oral Torah, but Y’shua would have been aware of the genuine Oral Torah and was most certainly observant of its commands, which included such things as the proper killing of animals, the instructions given to David for the building of the First Temple and the establishing its liturgical worship service, etc.
        Of course Y’shua did NOT ever refer to the New Testament writings, because they did not exist until well after His death and resurrection. His own teachings are taken solidly and without exception from the OT. Since He promised to equip us in every way for our Walk with Him, I find it significant that He did NOT tell us to look for NEW writings or revised instructions. To the contrary, on multiple occasions, He exhorted the people to study and meditate on the ANCIENT scriptures, particularly on the Torah given to Moses. He warned them more than once that if they were not devoted to THOSE scriptures, they would ‘err’ and find themselves drawn away into ‘lawlessness’ (sin).

        Liked by 1 person

      17. That’s really great commentary from Sue. She makes a great point about Luke 24:44. Most specifically about context, that the context at that time would have been that the phrase, “the law, the prophets and the psalms” would have been a blanket phrase for everything we would consider to be written by the Spirit. So I agree, that’s probably some of the best guidance we get from Jesus directly.

        I’ll be honest I have some gentle pushback here with some questions. Not trying to be argumentative friend! But I’d like to bring up a few counterpoints and questions that I think are relevant here …agreed that nomos is the word used for the Law specifically, however, it’s not a specific Greek work just for the Law. It literally means “law” and had a much broader usage than just the Mosaic or Christian Law. But in context here, agreed, that’s what he was probably referring to.

        On the Talmud, I get squeamish around it. One of my favorite teachers Chuck Missler summed it up in that the epistemological problem with the Talmud is the excessive veneration of the commentators over the text itself. I think the Catholic church finds itself in this rabbit hole as well because it doesn’t really believe is sola scriptura.

        An Oral Talmud that is separate from the written traditional Talmud is not something I have heard of…I’d be curious to hear if we have manuscripts or evidence that this was in use and what it looks like. I’ll be honest though, this would go into the gray bucket for me along with the Septuagint because there’s not a lot of visibility to that in the Word itself that I can see. But I could see “You have heard it said” could be a reference there, but it could be a reference to other sayings as well. Without specific reference there, it’s kinda up in the air for me.

        And then also on Jesus not talking about writings after him…does this imply that we should take the NT except for the Gospels out of the canon? I’m not sure if that’s what was implied, but wanted to bring it up. I would have to disagree there if so.

        That also brings up an other question…why did it stop at Revelation?

        The points though she made on Jesus not referencing the Apocrypha are good and I agree there. There are a handful of books which are never quoted in the NT (eg Song of Songs, Esther, Ruth,…), but are canon. So I wouldn’t make that the only qualifier.

        Enoch – agreed. something is going on there. Jude does quote it. I’ve read Enoch and have a copy in my library and I’m still unsure about it. I don’t know where it really belongs. I don’t feel from the Spirit when I read it that it definitely belongs, but that could be my own feelings on that matter. But there obviously is some stuff that is legitimate because it is quoted in the NT.

        What do you think about Enoch Lene?

        Like

      18. Hi friend,
        Okay… that was a long comment on Sue’s take on it. Whether it’s wrong or right I have no means to determent. There’s a lot in it if you wanted to dig further though.

        As far as Enoch goes, then I’m truly not sure. On one hand, it looks like a different version of Revelation, perhaps described not using codes. On the other hand, having two books describing the same thing may have been a bit too much. Canon or not, it’s not a part of the Word and I’m happy to accept that.

        Very interesting comment on the apocrypha from your greek tutor… I’m not sure I quite understand what he means with the “process of reception”, but I’m still feeling unwell so don’t have a lot of brain power.

        I’m off to school Christmas concert… and then it’s HOLIDAY!! Seriously can’t wait.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. Have fun friend!! Agreed with your thoughts here.

        I’ll be honest, I’m good with this one and the apocrypha. I’m closing that box for myself. I’m good lol. It’s probably not canon and I’ll leave it at that, for now.

        Hope you have a good weekend! Sorry I’ve been mia on here. Long week! Busy week. How are you feeling, any better?

        Like

      20. Hi my friend.
        Yes, I read about your day on facebook… so glad the Lord spoke to you beforehand!
        Truth; I’m still not well. I have vertigo and unfortunately it gets worse – or sets it off when I look into a screen (computer or phone). TV I’m relatively okay with. It’s strange to not be able to use much screen…!! My two blogs have to be as they are until I recover from whatever is causing this. Just typing a comment and it’s like I’m sailing.
        Have a great Christmas friend!

        Liked by 1 person

      21. Hey friend, so sorry to hear your not feeling well. Have you had a doctor look at it yet? Ear infection maybe? I loathe vertigo! Understood though about needing to lay low on screen time for the time being. Blessings to you and hope you have a wonderful Christmas!

        Liked by 1 person

      22. I’ll check them out but with the disclaimer that I don’t really trust Wikipedia! 🙂 It’s interesting, but my research has been fairly recent but builds on some just basic history interest that I’ve had for many years. Like Tuchman’s book, for example, or the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I am literally the only person I know who reads stuff like that (although I vary it quite a bit and am a pretty big literature buff).

        Liked by 2 people

      25. Do you mean the one on Maria’s blog? That one was probably the most interesting, because there just a lot of variability. The core stuff is there, the gospel and the heart of the OT for the Law and prophets. It’s interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. I think the variations in canon lists of early Christians is pretty telling…at the very least, this is an old discussion that was going on even a century or two outside of Jesus being here.

        Liked by 1 person

      28. Blah, my bad, hit the send button early. I was going to say, I have others in my circles who aren’t fans as well. So no worries! 😉

        I haven’t read Tuchman or Rise and Fall. What did Tuchman write? Speaking of world war two lit and the nazis, have you read Eichman’s “autobiography/confession” while he was commandant of auschwitz? Brutal reading. We read it for a holocaust class I took in undergrad.

        Liked by 1 person

      29. She wrote a book called “The March of Folly” that explores 4 different historical examples of folly, which she defines as “the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives.” It’s a secular book as far as I remember, but extremely interesting.

        Wow, no, I haven’t read Eichman. I may need to be in a pretty chipper mood before I start it. I remember beginning to read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” one year on Thanksgiving (before I was a Christian). I ended up putting it down until a later date! But I remember it being heart-wrenching.

        Liked by 1 person

      30. It’s depressing, yeah actually, I wouldn’t read Eichmann…in fact, now that I think about it, it was extremely depressing. Lol. Forget I mentioned it!

        That sounds interesting on the March of Folly…I may have to pick up a copy of that one! What’s her thesis as to why governments do it?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment