Changes

891 bytes added , January 25

m

Line 1: Line 1: −

The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the Bible that various religious denominations do not accept as part of the [[Biblical Canon]]~~—precisely~~ which books are regarded as apocryphal varies between denominations.

+

The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the [[Bible]] that various religious denominations do or do not accept as part of the [[Biblical Canon]] — precisely which books are regarded as apocryphal varies between denominations. The [[King James Version]] placed its Apocrypha between its [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s.<ref>https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/</ref>

==Samaritans==

−

The [[Samaritan]]s, for example, accept only the ''Samaritan Pentateuch'', the five books of [[Moses]], as canonical and inspired: Genesis through Deuteronomy and Joshua (more precisely called the ''Hexateuch''<ref>See [http://biblehub.com/topical/h/hexateuch.htm Topical Bible: Hexateuch] (biblehub.com)</ref>). All other writings are rejected by them as the uninspired works of men.

+

The [[Samaritan]]s, for example, accept only the ''Samaritan Pentateuch'', the five books of [[Moses]], as canonical and inspired: [[Genesis]] through [[Deuteronomy]] and [[Joshua]] (more precisely called the ''Hexateuch''<ref>See [http://biblehub.com/topical/h/hexateuch.htm Topical Bible: Hexateuch] (biblehub.com)</ref>). All other writings are rejected by them as the uninspired works of men.

==Protestant canon==

−

The Protestant canon of 66 books was originally formulated by [[Martin Luther]], who removed several books and texts from the Old Testament [[tradition]]ally included among the 73 books of the Bible as read by the Catholic Church and separated them as "apocryphal". Some editions of the Protestant Bible feature them in a section between the Old and New Testaments as '''The Apocrypha''' (Greek, plural, "apocrypha", singular "apocryphon"). He cited the rabbinical authority of the Jews who have rejected these books as having no place in the Hebrew canon. The same rabbinical authority also rejected all of the Christian writings.

+

The [[Protestantism|Protestant]] canon of 66 books was originally formulated by [[Martin Luther]], who removed several books and texts from the [[Old Testament]] [[tradition]]ally included among the 73 books of the Bible as read by the [[Catholic Church]] and separated them as "apocryphal". Some editions of the Protestant Bible feature them in a section between the Old and New Testaments as '''The Apocrypha''' (Greek, plural, "apocrypha", singular "apocryphon"). He cited the rabbinical authority of the Jews who have rejected these books as having no place in the Hebrew canon. The same rabbinical authority also rejected all of the Christian writings.

==Council of Jamnia ? A.D. 70==

−

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

+

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees, Books of|Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

Line 30: Line 30:

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%206:2-3&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 6:2-3]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2corinthians%203:14-16&version=KJV 2 Corinthians 3:14-16]

+

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2corinthians%205:18-20&version=KJV 2 Corinthians 5:18-20]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1thessalonians%202:13-16&version=KJV 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1timothy%203:14-15&version=KJV 1 Timothy 3:14-15]

Line 61: Line 62:

==Martin Luther and the Reformation==

Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45). See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers] [http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible] [http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This presents a problem. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture.

+

[[Martin Luther]] viewed the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] as possibly apcryphal because it realized it was not written by [[Paul]], and no one knows who did write it. Luther was also troubled by its complete condemnation, without redemption of apostacy.

==Formation of Catholic Canon==

−

The [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] definitive final canon of 73 books was retained "as read by the Church" by the [[Council of Trent]]. When Constantine first made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the early 300s, he called together leading Christians from the East and West parts of the empire to iron out the principles of Christianity, including cementing the canon. The entire canonical text was identified by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the [[Synod of Rome (382)]].<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible] [http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall] [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> Subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393) and the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]], dealt with minor questions of authenticity, affirming the canon of Damasus and the Synod of Rome, and set forth the first-ever listing of all 27 books of the New Testament together, with 46 books of the Old Testament, a canon of 73 books of the Bible, which quickly gained acceptance and remained unchanged for 1200 years. [[Jerome]] (''Prologus Galeatus'' c. 420) listed the books rejected by the Jews as "apocryphal" but himself quoted them as if they were scripture.<ref>Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon (2013)</ref> The canon of Damasus, and the Synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, was reaffirmed at the [[Council of Florence]] of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible] [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.] [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> The Catholic Bible includes the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 Old Testament books "with all their parts" from the ancient [[Septuagint]] as used by the apostles and the early Christian church and included in [[Jerome]]'s [[Vulgate]] translation as part of the [[Old Testament]], and accepts those books as scripture.

+

The [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] definitive final canon of 73 books was retained "as read by the Church" by the [[Council of Trent]]. When Constantine first made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the early 300s, he called together leading Christians from the East and West parts of the empire to iron out the principles of Christianity, including cementing the canon. The entire canonical text was identified by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the Synod of Rome (382).<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible] [http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall] [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> Subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393) and the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]], dealt with minor questions of authenticity, affirming the canon of Damasus and the Synod of Rome, and set forth the first-ever listing of all 27 books of the New Testament together, with 46 books of the Old Testament, a canon of 73 books of the Bible, which quickly gained acceptance and remained unchanged for 1200 years. [[Jerome]] (''Prologus Galeatus'' c. 420) listed the books rejected by the Jews as "apocryphal" but himself quoted them as if they were scripture.<ref>Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon (2013)</ref> The canon of Damasus, and the Synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, was reaffirmed at the Council of Florence of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible] [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.] [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> The Catholic Bible includes the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 Old Testament books "with all their parts" from the ancient [[Septuagint]] as used by the apostles and the early Christian church and included in [[Jerome]]'s [[Vulgate]] translation as part of the [[Old Testament]], and accepts those books as scripture.

:—[http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The Fourth Session. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)]

==Protestant doctrine: "these books were added to the Bible in the 4th century"==

−

Protestant doctrine constantly affirms that the apocryphal books were ''added'' to the Bible in the 4th century by the Catholic Church because they contain texts which support traditional Catholic and Orthodox teaching and practice, such as the intercession of saints and prayers for the dead, and the performance of good works and almsgiving as a means of deliverance from death and purging of every sin (''see'' [[Apocrypha#External links|'''The Great Heresies''']], External links ''below''). Since the Apocrypha were already in the Septuagint Old Testament from before the time of the apostles, and have been an integral part of the Greek Bible as read in the ancient Church and preserved by Eastern Orthodoxy from the 1st century to this day, it is difficult to see how they had been "added". Eastern Church leaders rejected the proposed Protestant canon of 66 books in the Bible.<ref>[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)</ref>

+

Protestant doctrine constantly affirms that the apocryphal books were ''added'' to the Bible in the 4th century by the Catholic Church because they contain texts which support [[Apostolic Tradition|traditional]] Catholic and Orthodox teaching and practice, such as the intercession of saints and prayers for the dead, and the performance of good works and almsgiving as a means of deliverance from death and purging of every sin (''see'' [[Apocrypha#External links|'''The Great Heresies''']], External links ''below''). Since the Apocrypha were already in the Septuagint Old Testament from before the time of the apostles, and have been an integral part of the Greek Bible as read in the ancient Church and preserved by Eastern Orthodoxy from the 1st century to this day, it is difficult to see how they had been "added". Eastern Church leaders rejected the proposed Protestant canon of 66 books in the Bible.<ref>[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)</ref>

Protestant doctrine also points out that none of the Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament, presenting this fact as an additional indication that the New Testament writers did not regard them as inspired scripture. Jesus and the New Testament writers quote from all Old Testament Books ''except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,'' and the ''Song of Solomon''. This does not mean they are not inspired, and they are accepted by Protestants as canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible.

Line 86: Line 89:

*[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Official King James Bible online: Apocrypha Books]</ref> Those who do comparative studies of Old Testament texts quoted in the New Testament have frequently been puzzled by the sometimes obvious discrepancies they have noticed, in particular the quotation cited in Hebrews 1:6 "And let all the angels of God worship him", a text not found anywhere in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the [[Tanakh]], but is found in the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 32:43, and which some scholars have proposed as a possibly inexact, rough parallel [[paraphrase]] of [http://biblehub.com/psalms/97-7.htm Psalm 97:7].'''<ref>See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/1-6.htm multiple commentaries on Hebrews 1:6].</ref>''' Protestant doctrine has traditionally affirmed that the books of the Apocrypha were not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, presenting this as an additional indication that they cannot be regarded as sacred inspired scripture.

−

However, Biblical researchers in the 20th and 21st centuries have also discovered that most of the Apocrypha, except the Book of Wisdom (originally written in Greek?), were in fact originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac) prior to the Christian era.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Apocrypha] [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha] (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)</ref><ref name=HebrewAramaic/> The New Testament quotes from all of the Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, and the New Testament books themselves were originally written in Greek.<ref>''The Gospel According to Matthew'' alone among the scriptures of the New Testament was probably originally written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the earlier tradition cited by Eusebius Pamphilus in his ''Ecclesistical History'' (Book III, Chapter XXIV). —''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', C. F. Cruse, 1874, London: George Bell and Sons, York Steet, Covent Garden. pages 97—98.</ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

+

However, Biblical researchers in the 20th and 21st centuries have also discovered that most of the Apocrypha, except the Book of Wisdom (originally written in Greek?), were in fact originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac) prior to the Christian era.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Apocrypha] [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha] (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)</ref><ref name=HebrewAramaic/> The New Testament quotes from all of the Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, and the New Testament books themselves were originally written in Greek.<ref>''[[Gospel of Matthew|The Gospel According to Matthew]]'' alone among the scriptures of the New Testament was probably originally written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the earlier [[Apostolic Tradition|tradition]] cited by Eusebius Pamphilus in his ''Ecclesistical History'' (Book III, Chapter XXIV). —''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', C. F. Cruse, 1874, London: George Bell and Sons, York Steet, Covent Garden. pages 97—98.</ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

See [[Septuagint#Table of LXX quotes and allusions in the New Testament|Septuagint: Table of LXX quotes and allusions in the New Testament]].

Line 101: Line 104:

*[[Book of Sirach|The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or, Ecclesiasticus]]

*[[Prayer of Manasseh|The Prayer of Manasses, king of Judah, when he was holden captive in Babylon]]

−

*[[Rest of Esther (Bible)|The rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee]] (chapters 10:~~4—16~~:1-24)

+

*[[Rest of Esther (Bible)|The rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee]] (chapters 10:4–16:1-24)

−

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|The Song of the Three Holy Children]]"Which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place—''fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.'' That which followeth is not in the Hebrew, to wit, ''and they walked....'' unto these words, ''Then Nebuchadnezzar...'' verse 24." (62 verses)

+

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|The Song of the Three Holy Children]]"Which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place—''fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.'' That which followeth is not in the Hebrew, to wit, ''and they walked....'' unto these words, ''Then Nebuchadnezzar...'' verse 24." (62 verses)

*[[Story of Susanna|The History of Susanna]] "set apart from the Beginning of ''Daniel'', because it is not in the Hebrew, as neither the Narration of ''Bel and the Dragon''"

*[[Bel and the Dragon|The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, cut off from the end of Daniel]]

*[[1 Maccabees|First Book of the Maccabees]]

−

*[[2 Maccabees|Second Book of the Maccabees]]

+

*[[2 Maccabees|Second Book of the Maccabees]]

==Four New Testament Apocrypha Books according to Martin Luther==

Line 125: Line 128:

Western [[art]] and [[theology]] continued to make reference to Apocryphal subjects long after they were deemed apocryphal. For example:

* the story of [[Judith]] and [[Holofernes|Holophernes]] was a popular subject for painters

−

* [[Handel]] wrote an opera, [[Judas Maccabeus ~~(opera)|Judas Maccabeus]]~~ based on the books of [[Maccabee]]s

+

* [[Handel]] wrote an opera, Judas Maccabeus based on the books of [[Maccabee]]s

* the four cardinal [[virtue]]s are taken from a verse in the book of Wisdom

* the [[archangel]] [[Raphael (archangel)|Raphael]] is known from the book of Tobit.

Line 133: Line 136:

There are also a number of books which are not included in the Catholic Bible, the ''[[Anagignoskomena]],'', which are part of the [[Orthodox Church|Orthodox canon]]: 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and the appended 4 Maccabees. The Protestant canon of Apocrypha omits in silence Psalm 151 and 3rd and 4th Maccabees, perhaps because these were not part of the [[Vulgate]]. They were never part of the Apocrypha of the King James Bible.

−

Other apocryphal works are called "[[pseudepigrapha]]". These include, for example, the [[1 Enoch|Book of Enoch]] and the [[Book of Jubilees]] and the [[Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs]] from the Old Testament period.

+

Other apocryphal works are called "[[pseudepigrapha]]". These include, for example, the [[1 Enoch|Book of Enoch]] and the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs from the Old Testament period.

In the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Church]], many of these are included along with other works in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, a total Biblical canon of 81 books. See [[Biblical Canon]].

Line 139: Line 142:

The "[[Apostolic Fathers]]" include the [[Didache]] and the [[Epistles of Ignatius]] and the [[Shepherd of Hermas]] from the early 2nd century.

−

The later [[Gnostic]] writings and gospels such as the [[Gospel of Thomas]], found hidden in the abandoned monastery library at [[Nag Hammadi]] in Egypt, were written after the New Testament period. These books were of disputed status in the early Church as to whether they were scriptural or not, and were not included by the regional Third Council of Carthage and by the later General Council of Trent in the list of canonical scriptures. The Early Church fathers were concerned only with books relevant to the Christian faith, books which concerned salvation and growing in the Lord, following the oral tradition of the apostles ([http://biblehub.com/multi/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm 2 Thessalonians 2:15]).

+

The later [[Gnostic]] writings and gospels such as the [[Gospel of Thomas]], found hidden in the abandoned monastery library at [[Nag Hammadi]] in Egypt, were written after the New Testament period. These books were of disputed status in the early Church as to whether they were scriptural or not, and were not included by the regional Third Council of Carthage and by the later General Council of Trent in the list of canonical scriptures. The Early Church fathers were concerned only with books relevant to the Christian faith, books which concerned salvation and growing in the Lord, following the oral [[Apostolic Tradition|tradition of the apostles]] ([http://biblehub.com/multi/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm 2 Thessalonians 2:15]).

+

== External links ==

+

'''General articles:'''

−

~~== References ==~~

+

*[https://www.britannica.com/topic/apocrypha Apocrypha], Britannica

−

~~{{reflist}}~~

+

*[http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm What are the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?]

+

'''Other articles on the Apocrypha:'''

−

~~== External links ==~~

*[http://www.wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes/HOB/BibleD-OTText.pdf The Old Testament Text. (wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes)]

−

*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus] (orthodoxwiki.org)

−

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1977articles/pdf/article1.pdf THE CODEX SINAITICUS, T. S. PATTIE. 1977 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

−

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1998articles/pdf/article12.pdf THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS AND THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK TYPES, J. H. BOWMAN. 1998 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

−

*[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]

*[http://ww.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the Old Testament] (discusses differences in the canon)

Line 160: Line 164:

*[http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster] (christiantruth.com)

*[http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.]

−

*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)

−

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction] (matt1618.freeyellow.com)

−

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

−

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)

−

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618]

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf Background and History to the Apocrypha, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (churchsociety.org)

−

*[http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm What are the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?]

−

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html Question: What are the Pseudepigrapha?] (gotquestions.org)

*[http://www.holyhome.nl/ot%20pseudepigrapha.pdf The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha] (Wesley Center Online)

*[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html New Testament Apocrypha: Early Christian Writings]

*[http://www.haneefandassoc.com/itsui/downloads/Itsui_Materials/The%20Lost%20Books%20of%20The%20Bible.pdf The Lost Books of the Bible] (haneefandassoc.com)

−

*See essay: [http://www.jiminger.com/Jim/apocrypha.html "A Defense of the Protestant position on the Apocrypha", by Jim Carroll.] (Presbyterian) —jiminger.com.

−

*See essay: [http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/the-orthodox-bible/ "Why Luther and the Protestant Reformers Removed Books From the Bible"] —''when the page comes up with photo-image of Orthodox Study Bible, scroll down to the essay immediately below it.''

−

*'''[https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-great-heresies.html The Great Heresies]''' ''list of heresies committed by Catholics''

+

'''Arguments that the Apocrypha should be in the Bible:'''

+

*[https://www.ncregister.com/blog/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanon-or-apocryphan How to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’)], National Catholic Register

+

*[https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/defending-the-deuterocanonicals-996 Defending The Deuterocanonicals], EWTN

+

*[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals], Catholic Answers

+

*[https://douglasbeaumont.com/2014/09/11/defending-the-deuterocanonicals/ Defending the Deuterocanonicals]

+

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction] (matt1618.freeyellow.com)

+

'''Arguments that the Apocrypha should not be in the Bible:'''

+

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618]

+

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)

+

*[https://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html Question: What are the Pseudepigrapha?] (gotquestions.org)

+

*[http://www.jiminger.com/Jim/apocrypha.html "A Defense of the Protestant position on the Apocrypha", by Jim Carroll.] (Presbyterian) —jiminger.com.

+

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

+

== References ==

+

[[Category:Bible]]

[[Category:Apocrypha]]

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,364

edits

Changes

Apocrypha (view source)

Revision as of 19:31, January 25, 2026