OK see yah
The Apocrypha
-
hihellowhatsup
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: Panama City, Panama
The Apocrypha
Is the Apocrypha considered scripture in the Baha'i Faith? Note there is both Old Testament Apocrypha (such as the Maccabees I & II) and New Testament Apocrypha (such as The Gospel of St. Tomas and the Gospel of Barnabbas)
OK see yah
OK see yah
Good question...
I haven't seen our Writings explicitly address this or quote from them, but I have read that there are some similarities either in the Qur'an or Baha'i Writings with Apocryphal accounts (and oral traditions).
In Sale's version of the Qur'an (accessible with other versions from here), he has many notes, through some of which he tries to correlate certain anecdotes with the Apocrypha (just do a search in your browser for "apocrypha", once you load that page).
Brett
I haven't seen our Writings explicitly address this or quote from them, but I have read that there are some similarities either in the Qur'an or Baha'i Writings with Apocryphal accounts (and oral traditions).
In Sale's version of the Qur'an (accessible with other versions from here), he has many notes, through some of which he tries to correlate certain anecdotes with the Apocrypha (just do a search in your browser for "apocrypha", once you load that page).
Brett
Also, you can use the same page I mentioned links to other versions to look up Rodwell's version in which he also makes some assertions on Apocrypha.
Bear in mind, though, that both of these translators were missionaries (Sale a bit more fair-minded or at least more objective in tone, I would say), who would not accept similarities with Apocryphal accounts (if they believed in these accounts) as evidence of oneness, but rather of Muhammad's "deriving" them from there.
Brett
Bear in mind, though, that both of these translators were missionaries (Sale a bit more fair-minded or at least more objective in tone, I would say), who would not accept similarities with Apocryphal accounts (if they believed in these accounts) as evidence of oneness, but rather of Muhammad's "deriving" them from there.
Brett
A search of this site also turned up mention of similarities between Apocrypha and Bahá'í accounts (I haven't read it but there were a few references within): http://bahai-library.com/articles/episode.bab.html
I believe there is some confusion here. I and II Maccabees etc. are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches, but not by Jews or Protestants (because they were written in Greek, not Hebrew). These are sometimes referred to as the "Apocrypha," but are in an entirely different category from such works as the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (Old Testament Apocrypha), or the Gospel of Barnabas (New). Many ancient writings have been discovered much more recently (for example, many of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi codices) and constitute yet another category, at least in the eyes of Christian exegetes (who would view many of them as heretical, as opposed to just unofficial).
The idea that Muslims would have used non-canonical texts is hardly surprising, since both Old and New Testament writers cite works not a part of the later canons. For several centuries the Bible did not exist as a book as we have, but as a somewhat fluid collection of writings. The Greek fathers tended not to distinguish between the authority of say, Paul or Clement.
The idea that Muslims would have used non-canonical texts is hardly surprising, since both Old and New Testament writers cite works not a part of the later canons. For several centuries the Bible did not exist as a book as we have, but as a somewhat fluid collection of writings. The Greek fathers tended not to distinguish between the authority of say, Paul or Clement.