[CS-FSLUG] TD: Apocrypha

Thu Nov 10 14:05:37 CST 2005

On 11/10/05, Ed Hurst <ehurst at asisaid.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:28:12 -0600, 'mash <re.mash at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Apocrypha"
> > Can someone explain this to me, is this really biblical ?
> > I have never heard of it before.
>
> Big debate there. It refers to a collection of books associated with
> Scripture. Most of them appeared in Early Church History, and some may
> have been published before Christ was born. In general, Protestant
> consider them informative, but not Scripture. Catholics include them in
> the Bible.
>
> --
> Ed Hurst
> -----------
> Plain & Simple Computer Help -- http://ed.asisaid.com/
> Plain Package blog -- http://ed.asisaid.com/blog/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
>

One quick note, and then later I'll post a link to something more scholarly:

Protestants refer to a certain set of OT books and book-chapters as the
"Apocrypha," while Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical books"
(pronounced "do tu row ca non ical"). I'm not sure whether Eastern Orthodox
Christians employ special terminology that differentiates between canonical
and deuterocanonical books (common usage of those terms dates back only to
the 1600s).

Historically, there was a larger set of books pertaining to both the Old
_and_ New Testaments which was rejected as canonical by the early Church --
those individual texts, and all of them together, were often referred to as
"apocryphal works." Examples of such works are: the Book of Enoch, the
Assumption of Moses, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of St.
Thomas.

By the way, just because an OT-related or NT-related work was deemed
"apocryphal" didn't necessarily mean that it wasn't looked upon with
reverence -- for example, both the Western and Eastern Church have long
venerated the Protoevanglium of St. James, for it is one source from which
we learn the names of the Virgin Mary's parents, "Joachim and Anna." Again,
it's not considered to actually be part of Sacred Scripture nor "on par"
with it, and yet still it is considered an important text of the early
Church. Note too, that the assertions and details contained in any such
work, insofar as they have not been confirmed by the Magisterium as
authentically belonging to Sacred Tradition (as they do not belong Sacred
Scripture), can from the Catholic perspective be freely rejected by her
members. As it may interest some readers here, the names "Anna and Joachim"
are definitively considered to be part of Sacred Tradition proper, but this
is not the case with most of the info in the Protoevangelium of St. James.

The modern use of the term "apocrypha" to refer to the Catholic
"deuterocanon" stems from the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church
from the first century A.D. onward has, through the "majority opinion" of
its bishops, theologians, etc., and finally by its Ecumenical Councils,
considered the canon of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament,
called the "Septuagaint" or "LXX" (translated between 300 and 200 B.C.), to
be of equal weight when compared to the shorter Palestinian (Hebrew) Canon,
both canons being in common usage by Jews at the time of Christ's birth.

Many of the Reformers chose to differ with the Magisterium of the Catholic
Church (and the majority of the Early Church Fathers, and the nearly
universal practice of the early Church as a whole) on this matter, and
decided to accept only the OT books in the Palestinian Canon. It is
interesting to note that the original edition of the King James Bible
contained the "extra books" in the Alexandrian (Greek) Canon in a section
between the OT and NT, with the heading "The Books called Apocrypha."

Here is a table which compares the Protestant Apocrypha with the Catholic
Deuterocanon:

Protestant Apocrypha || Catholic Deuterocanon

1 Esdras == Not Included (in older Catholic Bibles, the Book of Ezra is
titled "1 Esdras," so Catholics will sometimes refer to the apocryphal "1
Esdras" as "3 Esdras")

2 Esdras == Not Inluded (in older Catholic Bibles, the Book of Nehemiah is
titled "2 Esdras," so Catholics will sometimes refer to the apocryphal "2
Esdras" as "4 Esdras")

Tobit == Tobit ("Tobias" in older Catholic Bibles)

Judith == Judith

Additions to Esther == Esther (part of)

The Wisdom of Solomon == The Widsom of Solomon

Sirach == Sirach ("Ecclesiasticus" in older Catholic Bibles)

Baruch == Barcuh 1 - 5

The Letter of Jeremiah == Baruch 6

The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men == Daniel 3 (part
of)

Susanna == Daniel 14

The Prayer of Manasseh == Not Included

1 Maccabees == 1 Macabees

2 Macabees == 2 Macabees

In Christ,

Michael Bradley, Jr.

--
My home on the Net ::
http://www.michaelsbradleyjr.net/

IC XC NIKA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20051110/86b3b7ba/attachment.htm>