Is there a complete edition of Apocryphal books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geist

Guest
I realize this isn’t “sacred scripture” per se, but I would like to read the Apocryphal as an exercise in pleasure reading, the problem is many books seem to be written about them, but not so many actually contain the texts themselves.

Is there a good collection of all of them it is considered an excellent translation? Commentary/footnotes would be a appreciated as well to flesh out some details.

Thank you.
 
By Apocrypha, do you mean the books of the Bible not found in Protestant Bibles? Or do you mean ancient texts that didn’t make it into the Bible, period?

The former is easy - buy a Catholic Bible.

The latter, I don’t know about. I know of a website that has a good many “lost texts” but there’s usually a good reason they weren’t included in the Canon at the Council of Hippo.
 
Do you realize that there were 110 books that were seriously considered for Scriptural Canon in the late 4th century? That would mean that there are at least 83 books left that would automatically qualify as “apochryphal”. I’m not sure if that is even counting the Gnostic Gospels, such as Thomas and others, but I wouldn’t be interested in reading those.

I’ve just purchased a book that has all of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings along with commentary, but I haven’t received it. The same author did a book on St. Ignatius and St. Clement of Rome, which is what I was originally searching for, but I found it too late. I’d also be interested in a similar book for Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus. Probably a handful of others.
 
Geist said:
I realize this isn’t “sacred scripture” per se, but I would like to read the Apocryphal as an exercise in pleasure reading, the problem is many books seem to be written about them, but not so many actually contain the texts themselves.

Is there a good collection of all of them it is considered an excellent translation? Commentary/footnotes would be a appreciated as well to flesh out some details.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Try this website. I don’t think there is commentary with them though.

earlychristianwritings.com/
 
“The Pre-Nicene New Testament” by Robert Price is a great resource for books used in the first centuries of Christianity by many different groups that didn’t make it into the NT.

The Oxford Study Bible Expanded Edition with Apoc/Duet books has those books accepted by Orthodox, but not by Catholics.

“Lost Books of the Bible” and “Forgotten Books of Eden” are two olders sources that are very interesting.

“Lost Scriptures” by Bart Erhman is a compendium and history of books used as scripture by various Christians of the first centuries…but later named “heretical” or “apocryphal”.

“The Other Bible” is also a great source.
 
Richard320 said:
By Apocrypha, do you mean the books of the Bible not found in Protestant Bibles? Or do you mean ancient texts that didn’t make it into the Bible, period?

The former is easy - buy a Catholic Bible.

The latter, I don’t know about. I know of a website that has a good many “lost texts” but there’s usually a good reason they weren’t included in the Canon at the Council of Hippo.
Click to expand...
I should have been more specific, I have a Catholic Bible and have read all of it. I was referring to the books that didnt make it there.

As stated I’m reading them for pleasure, not as Scripture. The links others provided will be examined when I have time, thank you all.
 
Geist said:
I should have been more specific, I have a Catholic Bible and have read all of it. I was referring to the books that didnt make it there.

As stated I’m reading them for pleasure, not as Scripture. The links others provided will be examined when I have time, thank you all.
Click to expand...
For The Development of the Canon of the New Testament see this site:

ntcanon.org/index.shtml
 
I will divide my comments in two parts – first Jewish and Old Testament Apocrypha, and then New Testament Apocrypha.

OLD TESTAMENT
  • The best translation of the Septuagint (including the Septuagint Apocrypha) is the New English Translation of the Septuagint. This is really the starting point to understanding the Apocryphal Old Testament and is of interest in and of itself.
  • For the “canonical Apocrypha” (e.g., what is included in the NRSV), Oxford published an excellent parallel edition with Greek, Douai, King James, NRSV, NAB, NJB, Good News Translation, and Knox). It is out of print, but easily available on the used market.
  • A fairly standard selection of Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is in the two volume Charlesworth set. An older alternative, which offers some interesting commentary (but a less complete selection), is Charles (volume 1, volume 2).
  • Richard Bauckham and James Davilla are publishing a further supplement to Charlesworth.
  • If your interest is in 1 Enoch in particular, I recommend Nickelsburg’s translation. See also his excellent commentaries (volume 1, volume 2, in progress).
  • There are several good editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I like Vermes.
  • There are a number of good editions of the Mishnah; Danby’s edition is in one volume and has some useful notes.
  • You can find cheap reprints of 19th century translations of Josephus, but they are unreadable and unreliable. Instead I recommend getting the Loeb library editions. An excellent study of Josephus is by Louis Feldman (Feldman also translated some of the Loeb library volumes.)
  • You’ll want a way to access the midrash; a nice compilation of midrash related to the Bible is Louis Gizberg’s set (I strongly recommend getting the 2003 two volume edition and not one of the other reprints.)
  • An interesting volume of commentary of apocryphal versions of the Pentateuch tales is James Kugel’s The Bible As It Was; a more complete version is his Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era. Kugel has written some other books in a similar vein.
 
NEW TESTAMENT
  • Elliott has the best single volume collection of New Testament Apocrypha; although his work is somewhat limited because it dates from 1993 (quite a few texts have been found since then) and because it is not complete.
  • Schneemelcher (volume 1, volume 2) is more complete, but also is dated. Worse Schneelmelcher is translated from German.
  • Another alternative is M. R. James; which is the direct predecessor of Elliott. It dates from the 1920s, and of course, James was a literary star (several of his ghost stories talk about apocryphal works.)
  • Ehrman has a nice sampling of New Testament Apocrypha. If your interest specifically is in Apocryphal Gospels, then Ehrman and Please and the most complete version (with Greek and Coptic original) although they exclude most of the Nag Hammadi text.
  • If your interest is specifically in the Apocryphal Paul, then a terrific volume is Weeks and Fitzgerald. This volume is heavily annotated and has a wide variety of critical essays.
  • Of course, the Nag Hammadi texts radically change our understanding of New Testament Gnostic Apocrypha; Robinson and Meyer have the standard translation.
  • For the Apostolic Fathers, Ehrman’s Loeb library set (volume 1, volume 2) is standard; although Holmes is an acceptable alternative. Louth is also nice, although it omits the Shepherd of Hermas and Papias.
  • Eusebius is available is several good translations; my preference is Louth’s.
I think you will find that the above texts will take you several months to master at a minimum, and do not require knowledge of Aramaic, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

However, if you have the language skills and want more references (e.g., the Talmuds, more midrash, Jewish mystical works, critical editions of the Septuagint, other early Church Fathers, etc.) just let me know.
 
I am not sure why anyone would want to spend any serious time reading the NT Apocrypha.

It’s like reading fairy tales. What conclusions can you draw from fairy tales? Nothing. They’re fairy tales.
 
Geist said:
I realize this isn’t “sacred scripture” per se, but I would like to read the Apocryphal as an exercise in pleasure reading, the problem is many books seem to be written about them, but not so many actually contain the texts themselves.

Is there a good collection of all of them it is considered an excellent translation? Commentary/footnotes would be a appreciated as well to flesh out some details.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Look for a cd offer which is called: New Advent

It has hundreds of early father writing on it…

I believe there is a site online which lets you access that cd…

Here is an ad for it…

store.newadvent.org/caencd.html

Here is a site with a sample of it:

newadvent.org/library/

and finally but not least… if you will go up to the top of this page’s menu
you will find a tab listed as “Encyclopedia”

I believe this board, forum, uses the same cd rom for it’s encyclopedia…

Good luck…

just google “New Advent”

and it should let you read it…

There is thousands of pages of writings dealing with the Catholic church…
 
steve53 said:
I am not sure why anyone would want to spend any serious time reading the NT Apocrypha.

It’s like reading fairy tales. What conclusions can you draw from fairy tales? Nothing. They’re fairy tales.
Click to expand...
Not all Apochrypha is fairy tales.

I believe you are confusing Apochrypha with gnostic writings.

The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, Protoevangelium of James, St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and St. Ignatius’ Epistles would NOT classify as fairy tales.
 
steve53 said:
I am not sure why anyone would want to spend any serious time reading the NT Apocrypha.

It’s like reading fairy tales. What conclusions can you draw from fairy tales? Nothing. They’re fairy tales.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion.

It may interest you to know that the Holy Father, Pope Bendict XVI, disagrees with you and in fact has delivered (as Pope) homilies on the Apostolic Fathers, including on the writings in the New Testament Apocrypha).

As Professor Ratzinger, he wrote about the Didache, also in the New Testament Apocrypha.

And, in his writings as a Professor, Cardinal, and Pope, Benedict (Ratzinger) has extensively referenced Eusebius – and with good reason; without Eusebius we would know little about the early Church after the Book of Acts.

(I suspect that most people would also disagree that one can draw “nothing” from fairy tales – indeed, drawing morals from fiction has a long history from Homer to J. R. R. Tolkien.)
 
My error if misunderstood the definition of Apocrypha.

Are the Gnostic gospels considered a part of it? Eusebius?
 
steve53 said:
My error if misunderstood the definition of Apocrypha.

Are the Gnostic gospels considered a part of it? Eusebius?
Click to expand...
Apocrypha merely means any non-canonical work. Thus, the Apostolic Fathers (which were considered for the canon, and excluded, but are still highly valued) are part of the apocrypha. They have been published in some nice editions:

Harvard Loeb Library (Greek/English): (Volume 1, Volume 2)

Michael Holmes: (English only, Greek/English)

Louth (English only, omits Shepherd of Hermas and Pappias)

I think that most people say that the Gnostic Gospels were apocryphal, since they presented an alternative to books in the Bible, but were ultimately rejected. One of the Gnostic Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, is quite important for Biblical studies (but – in Catholic face, it is not a sacred work.)

These are some confusing points though. For example, in the Nag Hammadi documents, there was a copy of a portion of Plato’s Republic. I think that many people would agree that Plato’s Republic has intellectual value, even though it is not a sacred work.

It is an interesting question as to whether Eusebius is considered Apocrypha or not. Since he discusses Biblical history and discusses canon, and since he was early I would say yes. In particular, he reprints the early thoughts on what would eventually be assigned as canon.
 
steve53 said:
My error if misunderstood the definition of Apocrypha.

Are the Gnostic gospels considered a part of it? Eusebius?
Click to expand...
if I’m correct, Apochrypha has a root meaning of revealing or unveiling. They are good for reading. I doubt if the gnostic writings even rise to that level.
 
NotWorthy said:
if I’m correct, Apochrypha has a root meaning of revealing or unveiling. They are good for reading. I doubt if the gnostic writings even rise to that level.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that your etymology is not correct. You can look up the meaning of “apocrypha” here. It comes from the Greek,
neuter plural of apókryphos hidden, unknown, spurious, equivalent to apokryph- (base of apokrýptein to hide away; see apo-, crypt)
Click to expand...
The relevant dictionary definition here is
various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
Click to expand...
Catholic scholars do not speak of the Deuterocanon as being “apocryphal.” Whether apocrypha is worth reading or not depends on the individual work, and the purpose for which one is reading it.

However, there many things worth reading which are not part of the canon. For example, Dante is worth reading, even though no one believes it is part of the canon.
 
Bible_Reader said:
I am afraid that your etymology is not correct. You can look up the meaning of “apocrypha” here. It comes from the Greek,

The relevant dictionary definition here is

Catholic scholars do not speak of the Deuterocanon as being “apocryphal.” Whether apocrypha is worth reading or not depends on the individual work, and the purpose for which one is reading it.

However, there many things worth reading which are not part of the canon. For example, Dante is worth reading, even though no one believes it is part of the canon.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And everyone should read at least some of the Church fathers, such as Augustine, not that they are apocryphal, but because they explain more fully the thoughts and meanings in Christianity.

Personally, I think that the more you read, the more you will understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top