Apocrypha versus Deutercanon

  • Thread starter Thread starter opdsgt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

opdsgt

Guest
Recently, I’ve been reading alot of posters who seemingly interchange the terms Apocrypha with Deuterocanonical.

I went out and did some decidedly unscientific research and it would seem these terms are anything but interchangeable.

Apocrypha are written works from what you might call the “bible era” but aren’t part of the cannon of books of the Catholic Church. They are not considered inspired.

The Deuterocanon (means second cannon) include seven books from the OT that Protestants don’t include in their bibles.

What irks me is when Protestants use the term apocrypha to describe the seven Deuterocanonicals of the Catholic OT. They appear not to be the same thing, and we ought to gently correct our Protestant friends (and fellow Catholics!) when necessary.
Deuterocanonical Books
Historical: First and Second Esdras, Tobit, Judith, and the Additions to Esther, First and Second Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasses.
Wisdom: Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus).
Prophets: Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah (in Baruch), and parts of Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon, and Susana.
Christian Apocrypha
There are 35 books not included in any Bible, attributed to persons in the Gospels, and dealing on Christian and Biblical themes:
14 Gospels, by Thomas, James, Peter, Bartholomew, Mark…
15 Acts, by Andrew, Peter, Matthew, John, Thomas, Paul…
6 Revelations, by Paul, Thomas, John, Virgin, Stephen, Peter…
 
There were numerous Apochryphal Books prior to the NT era. in the Book of Jude, the author cites two of them:

The Assumption of Moses (Jude 1:9) and the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14-15)

It should be noted that “Apochryphal” does not mean untrue, it just means it wasn’t inspiried. A History book is no less true simply because it’s not insprired. Of course, with today’s curriculum, trusting the validity of a History Book maybe be a poor choice!
 
Christian Apocrypha

There are 35 books not included in any Bible, attributed to persons in the Gospels, and dealing on Christian and Biblical themes:

14 Gospels, by Thomas, James, Peter, Bartholomew, Mark…
15 Acts, by Andrew, Peter, Matthew, John, Thomas, Paul…
6 Revelations, by Paul, Thomas, John, Virgin, Stephen, Peter…
Do you mean to tell me that John’s Revelation is Apochryphal?
 
No.

I can only assume the source was referencing another apocalyptic writing as opposed to the one we know is inspired and is included in the NT. Or, perhaps, it’s another John. Dunno for sure.
 
if the Apochryphal thingy isn’t inspired, is there any reason why it should be included in with the rest of the bible which presumably is? i haven’t read it myself so i don’t have an opinion of it, but maybe the protestants are on to something?😛
 
if the Apochryphal thingy isn’t inspired, is there any reason why it should be included in with the rest of the bible which presumably is? i haven’t read it myself so i don’t have an opinion of it, but maybe the protestants are on to something?😛
Because the seven books that we call the Deuterocanonical are not Apochryphal, they are inspired.
 
can i ask then, when were they written & who decided that the Deuterocanonical books were inspired?

ta
 
can i ask then, when were they written & who decided that the Deuterocanonical books were inspired?

ta
At various times, but they were part of the Greek Septuagint (which was the most commonly used Scriptures during Jesus time) and the Catholic Church deterermined they were inspired in the late 300’s. If I’m correct, they were approved around 390 AD.

I don’t think our Jewish friends revoked them till the 1400’s.
 
This comes from the Agape Bible Study:
After the destruction of Jerusalem and God’s Holy Temple*“The virgin shall conceive and bear a son…”,*Aquila, with the approval of the council, changed the Greek word "parthenos" = “virgin” in the Isaiah 7:14 passage to the Greek word for “young woman” = “neanis” in the newer Greek translation. These scholars also began to debate the Old Covenant canon and began recording the Oral Law [c. 200AD], which had been passed down through the ministerial priesthood from the time of Moses. This recording of the Oral Law would become the Mishnah. The Mishnah and its commentary, the Gemara [there are two, the Babylonian and the Palestinian], comprise the Jewish Talmud by the Romans in 70AD a group of Jewish scholars received permission from the Roman government to gather at a town called Jamnia [Jabneh]. These Jewish scholars, Pharisees and rabbis, formed a religious council and a school to study Sacred Scripture. Since the followers of Jesus were using the Greek Septuagint translation for apologetic and evangelistic purposes–using the text to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Covenant and was indeed the promised Messiah-- this translation became an anathema to the Jewish scholars of Jamnia. Christians, for example, were using the Greek text from Isaiah 7:14 quoted from the Septuagint in Matthew 1:23 as proof of the prophecy of the virgin birth. In response to the conversion of many Jews to Christianity through the Septuagint translation, in about 100AD the scholars of Jamnia authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder such “proofs” of fulfillment of Old Covenant prophecy, thereby hoping to hinder the spread of Christianity. For example, the Jewish scholar Aquila, with the approval of the council, changed the Greek word "parthenos" = “virgin” in the Isaiah 7:14 passage to the Greek word for “young woman” = “neanis” in the newer Greek translation. These scholars also began to debate the Old Covenant canon and began recording the Oral Law [c. 200AD], which had been passed down through the ministerial priesthood from the time of Moses. This recording of the Oral Law would become the Mishnah. The Mishnah and its commentary, the Gemara [there are two, the Babylonian and the Palestinian], comprise the Jewish Talmud.

Even though challenges to the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were debated at Jamnia, none of the 46 books of the 1st century AD Septuagint that we have in our Catholic Bibles were dropped until the early Middle Ages when the Masorites, a school of Jewish scholars, re-translated the altered Greek language Old Testament that was constructed in Jamnia back into Hebrew. At this time 7 books which we include were dropped from the Old Covenant canon including the only books of the Old Testament that recounted the story of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah, 1 and 2 Maccabees. The other books dropped from the Jewish canon were Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, along with parts of the texts of Daniel and Esther. Later in the 16th century AD, after over a thousand years of accepting the Catholic canon, Protestant Christians rejected the canon of the Catholic Old Testament and instead accepted both the translations and canon of the anti-Christian Masoretic Jewish Old Testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top