Apocraphal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sagefrakrobatik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sagefrakrobatik

Guest
How is this book viewed according to Catholic Tradition?
 
When Protestants refer to Apocrapha they are speaking of Different Books than a Catholic.
Our separated brothers include the 7 old testament books which we Catholics accept as Connonical
A Catholic Apocrapha would include books like the Gospel of James,or other non-connical works which might be read and have value but for a variety of reason don’t meet the standard of the books considered inspired
 
Some books in the Catholic Bible are called deuterocanonical or apocryphal = Apocraphal. However there is a large number of texts which are apocryphal and not considered part of the Canon by any denomination.

Gus has given a very clear reply.

[The story can get complicated.
*The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine.
Of these books, Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, remain in the Catholic Bible. First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic apocrypha.
With one exception, all of these books are considered ‘Old Testament’. The apocryphal New Testament ‘Letter of Paul to the Laodiceans’, was once incorporated in many versions of the Bible. However Laodiceans is now considered just a pastiche of other Epistles, and is omitted from contemporary Bibles.
(sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm)]
 
I wonder if the OP is actually referring to Revelation, otherwise known as Apocalypse - and whether this book has traditionally been viewed as literal prophecy, metaphorical prophecy, an allegorical comment on events going on in St John’s own time or what …
 
well the books that are listed by the above poster. Like the book of Macabees exclisaticus (spelling?) Tobias. Im suprised that the exclesiastic approval of these books hasnt cause more contention between protestants and catholics than other issues. In other words i wonder how mainline protestants view these text.
 
Sagefrakrobatik said:
well the books that are listed by the above poster. Like the book of Macabees exclisaticus (spelling?) Tobias. Im suprised that the exclesiastic approval of these books hasnt cause more contention between protestants and catholics than other issues. In other words i wonder how mainline protestants view these text.
Click to expand...
We regard those books as deuterocanonical, not apocryphal. There is a big difference between those two words.
 
I know the term Apocraphal means fiction. The books ive read that were categorized under the aformention name refrenced Jesus’s childhood.
 
Sagefrakrobatik said:
I know the term Apocraphal means fiction. The books ive read that were categorized under the aformention name refrenced Jesus’s childhood.
Click to expand...
I was under the empression that it meant hidden. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong. 🙂 The books referring to Jesus’ childhood are most certainly fiction and we do not have to believe them.
 
Sagefrakrobatik said:
well the books that are listed by the above poster. Like the book of Maccabees exclisaticus (spelling?) Tobias. I’m surprised that the exclesiastic approval of these books hasn’t cause more contention between protestants and catholics than other issues. In other words i wonder how mainline protestants view these text.
Click to expand...
Between this post and your last post I’m confused. :confused: Are you referring to what we call the deuterocanonical books? Which are Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Maccabees 1 and 2, these are canonical and there are some Protestants that do include them in their Bibles. I’m not sure as to the status they give them. The apocryphal are books like the Gospel of Thomas etc.

Could you please be a little more specific about what you wanting to know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top