What can we say about the Apocrypha books?

Hello RZIM. May I ask about the reliablility of the apocrypha books in terms of their authenticity and historical basis? Since it is not part of the canon, should we still consider them as part of the bible? Thank you


They are not part of the cannon that we call the Bible. As to there use as literature of the 2nd temple period you will be hard pressed not to find mention of them in any serious modern day scholarship. Most of what I read these days routinely refers to the apocrypha and the pseudepigraphy as material to help understand and apply context primarily to what we call the New Testament. If you look in the bibliographies of most commentary you will find references to the intertestamental writing.

As a side note 1 Enoch is part of the Ethiopian cannon and I always like to remind folks the Ethiopian Church is one the oldest churches in Christian history. Here is a link to an interesting article. Hope this helps.


Thanks a lot brother :slight_smile: will look into it


So basically, these apocrypha can only be utilize as historical but not canonized since most recorded intertestimental events are in these apocrypha books which are good readings. These gives us better context on the New Testament books. Hope I got it right there.

Interesting! The oldest Christian book from an Ethiopian Monastery. Amazing! And we thought that since the printing press was invented, that was the only time that books were done. It was a good thing that books were also done in the early AD Centuries.


Hi @Karl1 ,

I was just responding to iDan in another post, writing about the Apocryphal books :slight_smile:

I hope you find something useful in there. It was mostly about the New Testament apocrypha though. But for the Old Testament apocrypha, like @Jimmy_Sellers mentioned, are known as the 2nd temple writings.

If you want to know a little about the OT apocrypha, I came across a great table of it in here (Scroll all the way to the near bottom of the page):

Hope that helps. Blessings.

1 Like

I agree but it is just a start. I have linked you to a good book on the subject.

Good studies.


Seems like a good read. Thx @Jimmy_Sellers

1 Like

Hello jimmy thanks a lot hahaha will get to this :slight_smile:

Ooooooh okay haha got it. Thanks a lot. There are not only new testament apocrypha sources, there are also old testament apocrypha sources that covers the 2nd temple period.

And these are not considered as sources due to the lack of meeting three standards: Apostolicity, Orthodoxicity, and Catholicity. Even historians don’t consider them as strong historical canons.

Thanks a lot for the sources. Hehe :wink: Him alone!

1 Like

Apocryphal books are a mess. Reading apocryphal books or books for apocryphal books will not arrange the puzzle for you, but it is almost certain that you will be confused and there will be 2 more questions for each question and you will not get a good answer to any of them.

Dead Sea Scrolls are the most controversial Bible related scripts.

In my opinion, they are highly compromised for some reasons. Once discovered, only a few people have accessed it for decades. They were only published about a decade ago. During this time, the people in whose hands they were able to do whatever they wanted to do with them. On top of everything, we live in a digital age where there is no problem faking or hiding something.

So we talk about the hidding. The secret. Not Public. At all this is a origin of every Apocryphal writing.

Apocryphal books in general, including those from the Dead Sea, are subject to one rule. They are in the possession of some secret and closed societies.

In the Old and New Testaments, is God hiding? Which is reaching its apogee in the New Testament. Is Jesus hiding? Did He hide His knowledge? No, on the contrary, he and his apostles, disciples, and supporters have tried to spread it among as many people as possible.