To my Protestant friends: Difference between Deuterocanonical Books and Apocrypha

[Esdra]

Hi all,

lately I have found out in an interesting discussion that many Protestants don’t know the difference between the Deuterocanonical Books and the Apocrypha.

Since Luther the Deuterocanonical Books of the OT have been called Apocrypha and since then a lot confusion has arisen among present-day Protestants.

1) The Catholic Deuterocanonical Books

* [Tobit](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/tobit/1.html)
* [Judith](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/judith/1.html)
{* [Additions to Esther](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/additions-to-esther/1.html) (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)} ***which are the Greek parts of Esther in the Septuagint***.
* [Wisdom](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/wisdom/1.html)
* [Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/ben-sira/1.html)
* [Baruch](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/baruch/1.html), including the[ Letter of Jeremiah](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/letter-of-jeremiah/1.html) (as Baruch Chapter 6)
{* Additions to Daniel:
      o [Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/prayer-of-azariah/1.html) (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
      o[ Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/susanna/1.html)
      o [Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/bel/1.html)*** (Greek parts of Daniel)***}
* [1 Maccabees](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/1-maccabees/1.html)
* [2 Maccabees](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/2-maccabees/1.html)

2) The Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanonical Books

• the same as the Catholic ones PLUS
• 1 Esdras
• Prayer of Manasseh (usually at the end of 2 Paralipomenon/Chronicals in Orthodox Bibles) [which is also to be found in Martin Luther’s Apocrypha!]
• Psalm 151 (after the 150th Pslam)
• 3 Maccabees
• 4 Maccabees (in the Greek Orthodox Bibles in the Appendix.)
  **

1. The Apocrypha of the Septuagint**

• The Psalms of Solomon
• The Odes of Solomon
  (Which were both rejected as pseudoepigrapha in the Councile of Rome in 382 A.D.
  And is therefore of course not to be found in ANY modern day Christian Bible.)

This is the complete list of the Septuagint (together with the OT we all share [Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox], of course! ).

Furthermore in Eastern Orthodox Bibles you will find 2 Esdras as a deuterocanonical books, which is not to be found in the Septuagint. (But is to be found in Jerome’s Vulgate in the Appendix.)

The Deuterocanonical Books that are found in the KJV w/ Apocrypha are in red!

**
4) Other Apocrypha of the Old Testament**

There are many other Apocrypha of the OT in some Oriental Orthodox Bibles.
Please have a look at this website, for an overview!
A smaller list is also to be found here. (But this is a protestant website.)
**
5) Apocrypha of the New Testament**

There are several books which were not contained in the New Testament. Mainly because they are Gnostic, but also because of other reasons. Please have a look here for an overview!

I think it’s important to know the difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical Books, especially, since we are in a Catholic forum here; and I guess discussion with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters will get far easier and with less confusion if we know that difference.

Hope that helped!

Nice greetings,
in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Jerusha]

The semantics really need to be straightened out. What Protestants call the “Apocrypha” should actually be called the “R. Catholic Deuterocanon,” since there are MANY Old Testament and New Testament Apocrypha, some of which are worthy of study.

Just as the BoM is worthy of study as a piece of fictional literature. Comparison of the BoM with Job is legitimate, since both deal with the problem of pain (in different ways). Perhaps Mormons have forgotten Job.

 

[Esdra]

The semantics really need to be straightened out. What Protestants call the “Apocrypha” should actually be called the “R. Catholic Deuterocanon,” since there are MANY Old Testament and New Testament Apocrypha, some of which are worthy of study.

Just as the BoM is worthy of study as a piece of fictional literature. Comparison of the BoM with Job is legitimate, since both deal with the problem of pain (in different ways). Perhaps Mormons have forgotten Job.

Yea, you are right. Although this part belongs to another thread.
I am grateful that you are in agreement with me concerning this point!

Esdra

 

[cooterhein]

Deuterocanonical means “belonging to the second canon,” and I agree that when non-Catholics talk to Catholics, ease of communication is improved when non-Catholics refer to them (as previously suggested) as material from the “R. Catholic deuterocanon.”

However, when you see Protestants talking to each other, don’t be surprised if we just call them all “apocryphal.” While acknowledging that other canons exist, we only have one canon with 66 canonical books and no “second canon” that contains any Scriptural material. Many of us will refer to anything non-canonical as “apocryphal” by force of habit and because that’s more consistent with the things we happen to do with canons. From our POV, there is no “protocanon” and “deuterocanon.” There’s just “66 books in the canon” and “apocryphal books that some believe to be canonical, though they are not.”

 

[Esdra]

Deuterocanonical means “belonging to the second canon,” and I agree that when non-Catholics talk to Catholics, ease of communication is improved when non-Catholics refer to them (as previously suggested) as material from the “R. Catholic deuterocanon.”

However, when you see Protestants talking to each other, don’t be surprised if we just call them all “apocryphal.” While acknowledging that other canons exist, we only have one canon with 66 canonical books and no “second canon” that contains any Scriptural material. Many of us will refer to anything non-canonical as “apocryphal” by force of habit and because that’s more consistent with the things we happen to do with canons. From our POV, there is no “protocanon” and “deuterocanon.” There’s just “66 books in the canon” and “apocryphal books that some believe to be canonical, though they are not.”

But actually, Cooterhein, I have gotten to know MANY Protestants (in real life and here in CAF) that have no idea that something like other Canons exist, you see? And this is the reason why I write this thread!

But I think it’s great that you know that there are deuterocanonical books AND the Apocrypha - and that these two things are not the same in a Catholic or Orthodox context.

Esdra

 

[Genesius]

First of all, Esdra, I really must thank you for referring me to this thread, as well as starting it. I think it is important for communication between EO’s, Catholics, and non-Catholic Christians.

To see the contents of the Catholic Bible in it’s entirety I am providing the following link from the USCCB website (United States Council of Catholic Bishops). It also has the online Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), as well as daily readings and other wonderful resources for Catholics or those who are just interested in exploring Catholicism. Here is the link: usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

I thought 1st and 2nd Esdras was part of the Catholic DC but I guess I was wrong. I just remember seeing it in a paperback version of the “Apocrypha” that I obtained while I was still a non-Catholic Christian exploring the Catholic faith. At the time, however, I was in the same boat…not knowing the difference between “Apocrypha” and “Deuterocanonical”.

However, as I understand it…and I could be wrong…the DC is so named, not because it was added to the NT AFTER the fact…but because it had already been established as being added to the Jewish/Greek OT. Many of them were “intertestamental” in nature; that is, pertaining to the silent period between the last events recorded in the Protestant OT and the first events recorded in the Protestant (and Catholic) NT. Therefore, it was part of one established OT canon that was widely used in the first century, and had continued to be used in the Church until it was finally accepted as an accompanying volume when the NT canon was finally established by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It has been accepted as part of Sacred Scripture by the Church ever since.

 

[Esdra]

First of all, Esdra, I really must thank you for referring me to this thread, as well as starting it. I think it is important for communication between EO’s, Catholics, and non-Catholic Christians.

To see the contents of the Catholic Bible in it’s entirety I am providing the following link from the USCCB website (United States Council of Catholic Bishops). It also has the online Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), as well as daily readings and other wonderful resources for Catholics or those who are just interested in exploring Catholicism. Here is the link: usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

You are definitely right on this one. And this thread is not only for Protestants, but also for Catholics, to show them that there are other Churches which have a silghtly different deutero canon. (I only got to know that when I bought myself a Russian Bible in St. Petersburg, Russia, last year in Summer (2009) And this also was the reason, why I started researching about the deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha)

I thought 1st and 2nd Esdras was part of the Catholic DC but I guess I was wrong. I just remember seeing it in a paperback version of the “Apocrypha” that I obtained while I was still a non-Catholic Christian exploring the Catholic faith. At the time, however, I was in the same boat…not knowing the difference between “Apocrypha” and “Deuterocanonical”.

I think you are referring to the KJV with Apocrypha. Yes, the KJV has 1 and 2 Esdras in them.
But they are NOT part of the Catholic deuterocanon, but of the Eastern Orthodox Canon.

However, as I understand it…and I could be wrong…the DC is so named, not because it was added to the NT AFTER the fact…but because it had already been established as being added to the Jewish/Greek OT. Many of them were “intertestamental” in nature; that is, pertaining to the silent period between the last events recorded in the Protestant OT and the first events recorded in the Protestant (and Catholic) NT. Therefore, it was part of one established OT canon that was widely used in the first century, and had continued to be used in the Church until it was finally accepted as an accompanying volume when the NT canon was finally established by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It has been accepted as part of Sacred Scripture by the Church ever since.

You are right, the deuterocanon has nothing to do with that that they were inserted in the OT AFTER the New Testament.
They are also called “Spätschriften des Alten Testaments” (which could be translated like “Old Scriptures of the OT”; in the sence of that they were added late) and this summons quite well up your idea of intertesteamentalness.
Btw. the German term given above is in German a neutral term for books outside the Jewish Tanach.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

I think you are referring to the KJV with Apocrypha. Yes, the KJV has 1 and 2 Esdras in them.
But they are NOT part of the Catholic deuterocanon, but of the Eastern Orthodox Canon.

I forgot to mention that in the KJV with Apocrypha (just like in the Luther Bible) the** Prayer of Manasseh** is to be found and that this Prayer is also not part of the Catholic Deuterocanon but of the Easter Orthodox Canon (In this case I only can talk about the Russian Orthodox Canon, as I am not sure about the other Eastern Orthodox Churches!)

The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (with Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha), btw, has ALL books of the Septuagint in them (except “Psalms of Solomon” and “Odes of Solomon”; see above.)

Esdra

 

[Izdaari]

“Deuterocanonical” works for me. I’d probably go with the EO version, just personal preference, since I like EO thinking on a lot of things.

 

[JustaServant]

Keep reading Esdra.

 

[cooterhein]

However, as I understand it…and I could be wrong…the DC is so named, not because it was added to the NT AFTER the fact…but because it had already been established as being added to the Jewish/Greek OT. Many of them were “intertestamental” in nature; that is, pertaining to the silent period between the last events recorded in the Protestant OT and the first events recorded in the Protestant (and Catholic) NT.

I know you were making a brief summary that wasn’t intended to be entirely comprehensive, but I’m not sure that you can make such a point-A-to-point-B connection from the Jewish/Greek OT to the canon used by Catholics.

From what I understand, the ancient Greek canonical traditions are about the same as the current Greek canonical traditions. There were different early manuscripts that were different in their inclusion of certain books, but my point of view is that it makes more sense to draw straight lines between ancient Greek tradition (concerning the Greek Septuagint that you got from Greece) and the current Greek tradition. That means the ancient Jewish/Greek OT included a 151st Psalm (all the ancient Septuagint manuscripts do, anyway) and these ancient Septuagints would have had more in common with the Greek Orthodox canon beyond that than the eventual Latin canon.

If you look inside a Greek Catholic bible (and by Greek, I mean any one of the Eastern Catholic churches), I believe you’ll generally find that it contains all the material from the Greek tradition as well. (With the appropriate bits marked “apocryphal,” of course). It was the slightly later Latin tradition that led to the deuterocanon that you now have, and if memory serves, I don’t believe the term “deuterocanon” was used until the 16th century. At that point, it was brought into use by both the Eastern and Western churches in response to what the Protestants were doing.

Therefore, it was part of one established OT canon that was widely used in the first century, and had continued to be used in the Church until it was finally accepted as an accompanying volume when the NT canon

This is the part I’m not so sure of. If there was one established OT canon that was widely used in the first century (and I’m not so sure there’s any basis for saying there was), it would have been thoroughly Greek in nature and not the sort of thing that someone from a Latin tradition could lay claim to. Surely it’s the people from the current Greek tradition that can draw straight lines from them back to the ancient Greek tradition, yes? The Latin tradition has something to do with it, too, but not as directly, I would think.

 

[cooterhein]

But actually, Cooterhein, I have gotten to know MANY Protestants (in real life and here in CAF) that have no idea that something like other Canons exist, you see? And this is the reason why I write this thread!

You know, this is quite true. It’s very well organized, too- you did a nice job of putting it together. Easier to read and follow than most of the charts and graphs I’ve seen, for sure. Good job with this; I’ll be interested in seeing who else comes across it.

 

[Esdra]

You know, this is quite true. It’s very well organized, too- you did a nice job of putting it together. Easier to read and follow than most of the charts and graphs I’ve seen, for sure. Good job with this; I’ll be interested in seeing who else comes across it.

well thank you!

Since I have bought my Russian Bible I really got interested in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, especially in the Septuagint. (And this is also the reason why I bought myself the NRSV Catholic Edition with an expanded Deuteroconical Book part.)
Yesterday I ordered the Septuagint translated into German which was published in 2010. I am really looking forword to getting it! (which costs about US $ 90 which is rather expansive. - But I guess it’s worth it!)

Yes, I am also curious who else will trip over this thread!

Esdra

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The semantics really need to be straightened out. What Protestants call the “Apocrypha” should actually be called the “R. Catholic Deuterocanon,” since there are MANY Old Testament and New Testament Apocrypha, some of which are worthy of study.

The name of the Church is not R. Catholic or Roman Catholic. It is just plain “Catholic.”
The Church was simply called “My Church (ekklesia)” by Christ. It may have been called “Catholic” (katholikos, universal) to distinguish it from the the heresies that developed within the lifetime of the Apostles. Ignatius of Antioch writes the term in A.D. 107 as if it were already well known. “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

What Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” Catholics call Scripture. These books were all canonized beginning in A.D. 382 at the Council of Rome, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) Carthage (397, 419), and approved by Pope Innocent I in 405. Maccabees is as canonical as Matthew or Isaiah.

The term “deuterocanon” was first used by Sixtus of Sienna in 1566 to distinguish these writings from the “protocanon” of the Hebrew Bible and non-canonical writings.

There has never been a gathering of Protestants to establish a canon. How could there be, with thousands of splinters and no authority?

Protestants owe their truncated, 66-book Bible to Martin Luther, who rejected Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. He also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation but his followers restored them to their rightful place in the NT in the17th century. Unfortunately, Luther’s cuts to the OT were allowed to stand.

Deuterocanon literally means “second canon” but there was no second canon. The term simply indicates those writings that gained general acceptance in all the local branches of the Church later than the other accepted writings. The NT “deuterocanon” are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20.

You can find the real OT and NT Apocrypha by googling.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jerusha]

I use the term R. Catholic only in this context, to distinguish the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Catholic Churches, which have a different set of books in the Bible.

The deuterocanonical books are the books that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy include in the Old Testament that were not part of the Jewish Tanakh. The books are: Tobit (Tobias), Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Letter of Baruch. The deuterocanonical material also includes additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. (See Apocrypha for more detail.)
Like Jews, most Protestants exclude these books as apocryphal. The word ‘deuterocanonical’ comes from the Greek for ‘second canon’. The meaning of the name is a matter of dispute. Some hold that they are so called because they were written at a later time than the Jewish scriptures, and that they are included in the Old Testament because they were written before the time of Jesus. Others (see Catholic Encyclopedia entry cited in References) hold that the term merely serves to set off those books whose status has been a matter of dispute.

Most Septuagint manuscripts include the deuterocanonical books and passages. Like the New Testament, the deuterocanonical books were mostly written in Greek. Some were written in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost and exists only in the ancient Greek translation. One, 2 Esdras, survives only in an ancient Latin translation but was probably composed in Greek.

Using the word “apocrypha” implies that the writings in question should not be included in the Bible, lumping them together with certain apocryphal gospels. The Style Manual for the Society of Biblical Literature recommends the use of the term “deuterocanonical literature” instead of “Apocrypha” in academic writing.

See also: Biblical canon, Apocrypha

knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Deuterocanon/

 

[Esdra]

You can find the real OT and NT Apocrypha by googling.

Jim Dandy

You do know, Jim that there are “thousands” of “real” Apocrypha?
From the NT, as well as from the OT!

Esdra

PS: Why are you so harsh? This thread is for information purposes only!
And not only for Protestants, but also for you as a Catholic.
Did you know that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches have a different deuterocanon?

 

[Esdra]

1. Other Apocrypha of the Old Testament

There are many other Apocrypha of the OT in some Oriental Orthodox Bibles.
Please have a look at this website, for an overview!
A smaller list is also to be found here. (But this is a protestant website.)

And here for completion porpuses the Books of the Oriental Orthodox Canon:

      **Accepted by Ethiopian and Armenian Orthodox**

         **The (First) Book of Enoch**

         [RH Charles Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm)
         [Richard Laurence Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RL.html)
         [George Schodde Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_GHS.html)
         [Parallel Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC_Parallel.html)
         **Books Accepted by Ethiopian Orthodox**

         **The Book of Jubilees**

         [GH Schodde Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Jubilees_GHS.html)
         [RH Charles Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Jubilees_RHC.html)
         **The Things Omitted from Jeremiah the Prophet (2 Baruch)**

         [Robert Kraft Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Jeremiah_Baruch_4_Kraft.html)
         [Jacques Issaverdens Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Jeremiah_Baruch_4_Issaverdens.html)
         **Accepted *Historically*** by Armenian Orthodox

         **Joseph and Asenath **

         [Jacques   Issaverdens Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Joseph_and_Assaneth_Issaverdens.html)
         **Lives (or:   Death) of the Prophets **

         [CC   Torrey Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Lives_of_the_Prophets_Torrey.html)
         **Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs **

         [RH Charles Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/T12P_RHC.html)
         [Robert Grotshead Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/T12P_RG.html)
         [Parallel Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/T12P_RHC_Parallel.html)
         **Books Accepted by Syrian Orthodox**

         **Apocalypse of Baruch (4 Baruch)**

         [RH Charles Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Jeremiah_Baruch_2_RHC.html)
         **Psalms 151-155**

         [W.   Wright Version](http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Psalms_151-155_Wright.html)

**Notes: **[]Psalm 151](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=523875) is also to be found in the Eastern Orthodox Canon.
3 Baruch is a pseudoepigraphic Book that is neiter in the Jewish, nor in any Christian canon.
2 Enoch and 3 Enoch are also pseudoepgraphic and in no Canon.

**2 JimDandy:

Are these Books above “real” Apocrypha for you?**

Esdra

 

[Genesius]

Esdra, I was wondering if you have heard of the Assumption of Moses? There is a reference to it in Jude 9. I was reading a commentary once that said it was in the book of Enoch, but I never found any such reference. The commentary went on to describe the event in more detail. The argument Satan gave Michael was that Moses was a murderer (remember the Egyptian that was whipping a slave that Moses killed?) and therefore he belonged to him. Michael somehow discredited that argument, and then Satan said he was the lord of the physical world and since Moses’ body was flesh it was part of the physical realm, and that’s when Michael responded, “May the Lord rebuke you!” as recorded in Jude 9 (perhaps not in that order, I can’t remember).

Anyway, I have searched and searched for the Assumption of Moses and cannot find it anywhere. Do you know if it even exists anymore, and/or where it can be found?

 

[Esdra]

Esdra, I was wondering if you have heard of the Assumption of Moses? There is a reference to it in Jude 9. I was reading a commentary once that said it was in the book of Enoch, but I never found any such reference. The commentary went on to describe the event in more detail. The argument Satan gave Michael was that Moses was a murderer (remember the Egyptian that was whipping a slave that Moses killed?) and therefore he belonged to him. Michael somehow discredited that argument, and then Satan said he was the lord of the physical world and since Moses’ body was flesh it was part of the physical realm, and that’s when Michael responded, “May the Lord rebuke you!” as recorded in Jude 9 (perhaps not in that order, I can’t remember).

Anyway, I have searched and searched for the Assumption of Moses and cannot find it anywhere. Do you know if it even exists anymore, and/or where it can be found?

Hi genesius,

very intersting. According to Wikipedia “The Testament of Moses” or the "Assumption/Ascension of Moses is a jewish pseudoepigraphal Book.

“The Testament of Moses” is, according to Wikipedia, a question of dispute, if it is the same than the “Assumption of Moses”.

Do you know this episode of South Park where also Moses is in (as a big “sun”)? Don’t know what it’s called, but I would say that there also an Assumption of Moses is assumed.

And to go back to the Bible:

"3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. " (Mk 9:3-4)

I would say that also this passage assumes that Moses (just as Elias, cf. 2 Kings 2:11) ascended to heaven.

Esdra

 

[Jim_Dandy]

You do know, Jim that there are “thousands” of “real” Apocrypha?
From the NT, as well as from the OT!

Yes. I read most of them several years ago, before I became a Catholic.

PS: Why are you so harsh? This thread is for information purposes only!
And not only for Protestants, but also for you as a Catholic.

Sorry, Jerusha, if you thought I was “harsh” in my reply. That was not my intention. What I wrote wasn’t meant for you at all, but for Protestant readers. I apologize for the confusion.

Did you know that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches have a different deuterocanon?

Yes to the Eastern Orthodox. The Greek and Russian canons are different. The most radical difference is in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox, one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

No, I thought the Eastern Catholic Churches had the same canon as the West. Which have a different canon?

I usually refer Protestants to this Methodist website:

Which Bible? Whose Canon? gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Jim Dandy