| 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 [[King James Version]] placed its Apocrypha between its [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s.<ref>https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/</ref> | + | 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== | | ==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== | | ==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== | | ==Council of Jamnia ? A.D. 70== |
| Line 89: |
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. | | *[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] <br/>[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 [[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. | + | 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] <br/>[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]]. | | See [[Septuagint#Table of LXX quotes and allusions in the New Testament|Septuagint: Table of LXX quotes and allusions in the New Testament]]. |
| Line 136: |
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. | | 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]]. | | 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 143: |
Line 143: |
| | | | |
| | 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]). | | 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]). |
| − |
| |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| | | | |
| | == External links == | | == External links == |
| Line 167: |
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.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://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://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://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.holyhome.nl/ot%20pseudepigrapha.pdf The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha] (Wesley Center Online) | | *[http://www.holyhome.nl/ot%20pseudepigrapha.pdf The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha] (Wesley Center Online) |
| Line 175: |
Line 171: |
| | '''Arguments that the Apocrypha should be in the Bible:''' | | '''Arguments that the Apocrypha should be in the Bible:''' |
| | | | |
| − | *[https://www.ncregister.com/blog/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanon-or-apocryphanHow to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’)], National Catholic Register | + | *[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.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://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) | | *[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) |
| | | | |
| Line 187: |
Line 184: |
| | *[http://www.jiminger.com/Jim/apocrypha.html "A Defense of the Protestant position on the Apocrypha", by Jim Carroll.] (Presbyterian) —jiminger.com. | | *[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) | | *[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 == |
| | + | {{reflist}} |
| | [[Category:Bible]] | | [[Category:Bible]] |
| | [[Category:Apocrypha]] | | [[Category:Apocrypha]] |