Question about the Catholic Bible

[daveleau]

I was doing a "mind exercise test" (similar to an IQ test, but not measuring IQ) and came across a word that I got wrong that I was sure that I had right.

Apocryphal:

A)
B)biblical
C)
D)Of questionable authorship or authenticity

(I can't remember the actual other answers or the actual wording of "D")

In checking my answers, I found that my choice of "B" on this question was wrong. I checked dictionary.com, e-sword's dictionary and M-W.com and all gave me the answer of "D". My question is, do you call the books that follow the "Apocrypha": Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)?

I think you do because of my experiences in Catholic churches I have visited. Assuming you do, what are your thought on the Apocrypha in light of the definition of the word?
Was this a revisionary Protestant definition?
Do you hold the Apocrypha in the same light that you hold the rest of the OT?

Thanks for helping me understand. I was truly surprised when I saw that answer.

God bless,
Dave

 

[Dark_Lite]

The letter D is the correct definition.

The deuterocanon is called the apocrypha by quite a lot of protestants because they don't believe them to be inspired works. This belief fits the definition of the word perfectly.

That is why Catholics don't call the books the Apocrypha, but the Deuterocanon .

 

[ufonium2]

If I'm not mistaken, "apocryphal" was a word applied to those books by Protestants. I know Orthodox refer to them as dueterocanonical and not apocryphal, and I think I've heard Catholics call them that too. I've also heard Catholics and Orthodox call them "apocryphal," probably because we're so used to you guys calling them that, and it's much easier to have this conversation:

-Does your Bible have the Apocrypha?
-Yes.

than it is to have this one:

-Does your Bible have the Apocrypha?
-We have the deuterocanonical books, yes.
-What are those?
-[list of the books]
-So is that the apocrypha?
-You could call it that, but we don't.
-Why not?
-Because the word implies an illigitimacy that's not called for.
-Oh.


The term "apocryphal" is rightly applied to the New Testament books that didn't make it into the canon. The problem of using the word apocrypha to describe the "extra" books in our OT is that perfectly good history books, whose origins aren't any more vague than any of the OT, get lumped in with the gnostic "gospels" and all those extra books that have no business in the canon.

 

[gtsecc]

Well, that means "of doubtful authenticity."

So, folks who question the authenticity of certain books, would call those books apocryphal. Those who don't would call those books deutero-canonical.

So, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics call the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14) "deutero-canon." You may find it interesting that these are all part of the "King James Version." Often you find a book claiming to be a KJV, but without these books. However, if you can find a facsimile copy of the KJV, which is basically photographs of the pages as they were originally printed, you will see that these books are included and cross-referenced. To us, apocryphal books would be something like the Gospel of Clement. Someone with more knowledge please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[daveleau]

Or the Gospel of Thomas or Mary MAgdelene, etc.

Ok, thanks. I appreciate the help. That clears it up.

Have a great Sunday!
Dave

 

[AMDG]

If you want to get all technical, "Apocryphal" would really be "Pseudepigrapha". The DIFFERENT term "Apocrypha" refers to the seven disputed books of the Bible-- the "Deuterocanonical" books. The Apocrypha (what Protestants call the Deuterocanonical books) are NOT the same as apocryphal works--writings which all Christians excude from the Bible. The words are just very commonly confused. And I doubt that it will change. Because of that, I really like Uniform2's proposed conversation.

 

[ps139]

Or the Gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdelene, etc.

Exactly. Thats what we call the apocrypha.
As far as I am concerned there is no apocrypha in my Bible.

Have a great Sunday!
Dave

you too!

 

[hopper]

The Mix-up About the Apocrypha



Part of the mystery concerns the meaning of the very name, “Apocrypha”.

Classical and Hellenistic Greek. The word was used to describe something “hard to understand”, or “hidden”.

Patristic Greek. Later the word was used with the connotation of “esoteric”, or something only understood within the inner circle of believers.

Early Fathers. Some of the early Fathers, for example Irenaeus and Jerome, were among the first to apply the word Apocrypha to the list of noncanonical books, including Pseudepigrapha.

Post-Reformation. In the time following the Reformation, the word Apocrypha meant “Old Testament Apocrypha”.

The confusion over the present issue about the Apocrypha revolves about the two traditions of the Old Testament canon. The Palestinian Canon contains twenty-two books in Hebrew (thirty-nine in English), and the so-called “Alexandrian Canon” contains an additional fourteen (or fifteen) books in its collection. The Palestinian Canon is the Hebrew canon that arose in Palestine and was recognized by the Jews. The Alexandrian collection is the Greek listing of Old Testament books, and it allegedly arose in Alexandria, where the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greek Septuagint about 250 BC. (Although it has been thought by some that there were actually two canons: a broader canon containing the Apocrypha, and a narrower one without it.)

Only eleven of the fourteen (or twelve of fifteen) books are accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. They were made a part of the official Latin Bible, the Vulgate. All except 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannasseh are considered canonical and authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church. From the time of the Reformation, the apocryphal books have been omitted from the canon of the Protestant churches. The RCC did not officially declare them canonical until the time of the Reformation, when the Protestants rejected them in favor of the Palestinian Canon of the OT. They appeared in most of the early English translations of the Bible (including the 1611 KJV, and the strongly reformed Geneva Bible (though later removed from each)), but in a separate section, much as it had in editions of the Septuagint which contained them, and much as it did in Jewish collections (even while not given canonical status). The RCC sometimes refers to their collection of most of these books as Deuterocanonical (or a secondary canon).

To add to the confusion of use of the term apocrypha, there is of course a whole collection of other books from a New Testament and beyond time frame, to which the term is also applied in its “hidden things” sense. A few of these even made their way into the Scriptures of many early Christian churches (such as “The Didache”, “The Shepherd of Hermas”, the “Apocalypse of Peter”, “Barnabas”, the “Acts of Paul”, and “1 & 2 Clement”).

By in large the term apocrypha has been used (though as indicated, not always referring to the same books, depending on which Christian group is using the term) to mean dubious or spurious. The term Pseudipigrapha is used by all groups to refer to “false writings” never accepted as canonical Scripture. Even among these clearly false writings, Christians have gleaned some respectful usage. Enoch, for example, is referred to in the NT, and many of our Church traditions on what happened to the Twelve Apostles is taken from what we find in the NT Apocryphal books.

To answer your question, Dave, you were both right, and so any proper quizz should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

-the hopper

 

[EllenMoran]

The RCC did not officially declare them canonical until the time of the Reformation, when the Protestants rejected them in favor of the Palestinian Canon of the OT.

Hopper, can I recommend you read up further on when the canon was set? I believe PeterPaul has posted at length on this topic, including the exact earliest date (300-something AD) that we see a list of the canonical books of the Bible.

 

[Axion]

Hopper, can I recommend you read up further on when the canon was set? I believe PeterPaul has posted at length on this topic, including the exact earliest date (300-something AD) that we see a list of the canonical books of the Bible.

Yes. The Canon, including the Deuteros was set in 382 AD, and confirmed in 397 at the Councl of Carthage and at many Councils after that, all well before the Reformation.

The removal of the Deuteros to a separate section was first done by Luther. Protestant bibles published them as a separate section until the early 1800s, when they were removed altogether.

 

[EllenMoran]

Thanks, Axion! I didn't want to guess and be wrong

 

[MrZoom]

While on the subject of the Deuterocanon, I thought this morning's reading from Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 11, was a beautiful passage -- so much so that I've put a verse of it in my sig.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Hopper, can I recommend you read up further on when the canon was set? I believe PeterPaul has posted at length on this topic, including the exact earliest date (300-something AD) that we see a list of the canonical books of the Bible.

Thank you EllenMoran and Hopper for your input,
I find this interesting...
Do you have a site address, or link to PeterPaul's posts on this subject ?

Thanks

Carlos

 

[Radagast]

THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE (A.D. 345-419): CANON XXIV (Greek. xxvii)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books. {i.e. First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings}
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon. {i.e. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Psalms of Solomon.}
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books. {i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah}
Macchabees, ij. books. {not included in all copies of the Canons}

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv. {including Hebrews}
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface {Bishop of Rome}, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church. {alternatively this last paragraph reads "Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read."}

(http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/6sardica/afcan24.htm)

 

[hopper]

Dear Dave et al, As you can see there is some degree of disagreement on the matter of when the books variously termed Deuterocanonical or OT Apocryphal were officially designated as canonical by the Church. This is perhaps part of the difficulty that leads to a bit of confusion even to this day (and your faulty quiz).

Among the early church fathers there appear to have been two traditions concerning the cannon of the Old Testament. One canon tradition was broad, encompassing all of the Jewish works that were read in the church for purposes of edification, including apocryphal books as well as a few apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha. Augustine favored this broader canon, and probably due to his influence in the church, the copies of the Septuagint from the fourth and fifth centuries include some books of the Deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha. Several local synods in the Western church (e.g. Hippo, 393; Carthage, 397 and 419) authorized the use of apocryphal works as Scripture.

The other canon tradition deemed only those books in the Jewish Bible to be canonical; scholars such as Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome generally favored this position. This led to ambiguity regarding the canonical works. At the Council of Trent in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church determined that the Apocrypha as well as the Jewish Bible were authoritative Scriptures and firmly rejected anyone who did not agree.

Discussions between the Reformers and the RCC continued unabated following the Council of Trent, and in 1719, Francis Lee argued that the Alexandrian Jews had a broader canon than did the Palestinian Jews. His idea was based on evidence from the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint, which contained various apocryphal books. A Roman Catholic scholar named F. K. Movers later argued for an open canon even during the patristic period; he based this argument upon rabbinic discussions in the first century. He even argued that the Old Testament canon was not closed until the Council of Trent.



There is, however, no question that the RCC accepts them as Scripture for purposes of your quiz and the questions it spurred you to ask. I humbly acquiesce to my CF icon enriched brothers and sisters (visibly declaratory Roman Catholics). I have meant no disrespect to my heavenly companions with whom I will spend an eternity praising God and having a merry old time, regardless of what we call ourselves. Then it will truly be the Word made flesh who will be our canon.

-the hopper

 

[ps139]

Jerome generally favored this position

And he still submitted to Rome, and important thing to note.

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Check out this website

http://www.drbo.org/catechism.htm

The Deutero-Canonical books, or the Apocryphal books can also be called the Proto-Canonical books meaning "first or tradition."