It's Saturday. So it's oftentimes a light day in the blog world. Maybe I can get away with a controversial post. Not to say my posts haven't been rather controversial (with some, I suppose), as of late. Though part of blogging is opening up some difficult issues, that may not be easily, if at all, resolveable.
A year ago on Jesus Creed, we had a couple of interesting (to me) posts and conversations on the Old Testament Apocrypha.
I have been charmed and challenged by what I've read from them so far. And I'm reading a book, right now, on the Apocrypha, by David A. deSilva, which challenges Protestants and evangelicals like myself, who have not taken these books seriously.
I will probably post more on this, as I learn more, and think through it, hopefully with others, like you.
You can find these books in editions of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). I have a parallel Bible with four translations, which include the Apocrypha (the NRSV, most complete in books included that have canonical status with differing Christian bodies), including the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible.
I am not convinced that these books shouldn't be in our Bibles. Or at least, I believe they have value for us.
There are issues here as to what is considered deuterocanonical and what is not. There is mostly agreement between Christians who hold to them, but some exceptions. Deuterocanonical does not mean a lesser canonical status, but it means books that came later than the Old Testament books, during the Intertestamental period.
There is much more to be said on this, of course. What thoughts or experience might you like to share on this?