Talk:Biblical apocrypha/Archive 1

Creation

This article was created from portions of the article on apocrypha; see its talk page for a number of pertinent comments. /blahedo (t) 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Apocrypha

I think that this split shows a lot of promise. But I am not happy to see comments about the Biblical canon showing up in odd places in the article Biblical apocrypha. E.g., the comment about the Eastern Orthodox canon in Modern Editions seems off topic. It seems to me that the tendency to insert opinions about the Biblical canon is inevitably controversial, invites long off-topic threads as prots and caths continue to attempt to have the last word, and pulls attention away from the topic at hand, which is the Apocrypha. There is already an article for this: Biblical canon. Do we really need another article for the exact same topic? Rwflammang 13:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-04-18T02:36:45 67.46.0.13 talk Removed the section Latter Day Saint views From Apocrypha as an act of vandalism. It therefor was not moved upon the split/massive edit done by blahedo 2006-06-10T18:17:07. -- thisma^talk 06:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vulgate

The Vulgate section needs work. Only those books labelled apocrypha by Clement VIII are discussed; this is anachonistic since Jerome preceeded Clement by centuries. Manuscripts of the Vulgate did not have an Apocrypha section; the Apocrypha section is, for the most part, a Reformation-era innovation. I suggest omitting this section and limiting our discussion to printed editions of Bibles. Rwflammang 14:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that there was no section labelled "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate, but I don't understand your objection; there were small-a apocrypha included in the Vulgate by Jerome, as discussed in that section. I'm not sure why you moved the Vulgate out of the section on "editions of the Bible", since it's an edition of the Bible. /blahedo (t) 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vulgate is a Version; there are multiple printed Editions of it, as well as many manuscripts. Manuscripts are referred to as editions only in very special cases, if ever.

Jerome's definition of Apocrypha included all those books in his Old Testament which were not extant in the Hebrew. His definition differed from Clement's. It was more like Luther's, but perhaps not identical. Therefore, your discussion of the Clementine Apocrypha is anachronistic when discussing Jerome's version.

I have reconsidered my earlier suggestion that the Vulgate section be removed. I think that it might provide a good place to report Jerome's definition of the word Apocrypha, which did have an influence on Bible publishers 11 centuries later. Sort of a prologue to the issue of Apocrypha sections in printed Bibles. It still needs some work, though. Rwflammang 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet revised the Vulgate section; I need to get my hands on a St. Jerome's prologues to make sure I get the details of his opinions on the canon. There's always tomorrow. Rwflammang 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther Bible

Can anyone confirm that the Luther Bible omitted the Prayer of Manasseh? I Believe it contained this work. I'll try to find a reference. Rwflammang 14:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I can confirm that it did NOT omit it. I have a modern edition from c.1910 which appends PoM to end of Apocrypha. But this edition does omit both I Esdras and II Esdras.C.jeynes (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly prepared to believe that, but it might be tricky to track down: a lot of people use the term "Luther Bible" to refer to a wide range of different published editions, and according to the sources I've read, the Apocrypha section was removed from the Luther Bible within Luther's lifetime. Good hunting; this issue is a morass of POV websites. :P /blahedo (t) 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a scan of a complete edition of the Luther Bible from his lifetime; it contained the Apocrypha, but definitely not 2 Esdras. I can't find it now; when I google "Luther Bible" I get a zillion hits on the same useless e-text without Apocrypha (or any pedigree, for that matter). Rwflammang 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found the Website, but the preface to my RSV:CB apocrypha mentions that the LB excludes 1 and 2 Esdras. Since it doesn't mention PoM, I think we can assume it has it.

I was under the impression that volumes of the Luther Bible minus Apocrypha did not become common until the bible societies started giving away their free bibles in the aftermath of WWI. Rwflammang 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Council of Carthage

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have accepted the Septuagint's list of books since the Council of Carthage, which met from 345-419 A.D.

The above statement is inaccurate and misleading. It is inaccurate in that Carthage did not follow the Septuagint's list; it omitted 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, Odes, and 3 and 4 Maccabees. It is misleading in that it implies (though it does not state) that this canon of a regional council was definitive for the whole church; it was not. Trent was definitive for the whole Catholic church, and it is true that the definitive canon wound up being identical to Carthage's, but this did not become apparent until the 16th century. I will remove the statement. Rwflammang 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stale references

Does it strike anyone as odd that the only references listed for the article are from the 19th century? Not that there might not be some significant works written then, but do other editors think there has been nothing important written about the apocrypha in the last century?? --Blainster 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of references was copied verbatim from an old Encyclopedia Britannica, which explains its 19th century sources. This article, like most others on Wikipedia provides what references it has by way of hyperlinks, all of which postdate the 19th century ;) Rwflammang 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic bibles

I removed this text: <<Even modern reprintings of the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims versions, although they include the deuterocanonical books, omit their Apocrypha section. Modern Catholic versions of the Bible contain the deuterocanonical books, but do not include the apocrypha found in earlier Catholic versions.>> If Catholic Bibles include the deuterocanonical books (being those also called the Apocrypha) then they would naturally not also include the Apocrypha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.146.55.6 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Catholic bibles used to include an apocrypha section; read the article for more details. The fact that they do not any longer is an interesting fact, and worth noting. Rwflammang 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense. We need to understand that context of how one faith handles these scripture as opposed to how another does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about what exactly does not make sense. Does the fact that a Catholic bible had an apocrypha section not make sense? Or does saying it had an apocrypha section not make sense. In either case, if it doesn't make sense, why doesn't it? Rwflammang (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Catholic Bible contains the Book of Wisdom and Sicrah/Ecclestiaticus.

The 1609 Douai had an appendix (not apocrypha) with the Prayer of Manasses and Esdras 3 & 4, with non-canonical status. Esdras being described as a "witness to the scriptures" (it describes the translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Greek). By 1800 this appendix was dropped. see this example from 1805 [1]. The article seems to confuse this appendix of the Douai is not the Apocrypha of the King James. ClemMcGann (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

don't be confused by the term Apocrypha. This term has a meanig for the Anglicans/Protestant and a different meaning (more ancient) for the Catholics. From a Catholic POV any book that is not in the canon (which includes at full tile also the deuterocanicals) is considered Apocripha: thus Catholics call Apocrypha also Esdras 3 & 4 and more other texts (usally said pseudepigraphal by the Anglicans/Protestants even if not technically pseudo-epigraphic). So the 1609 Douai appendix is includes apocryphas according Catholic POV. A ntv (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but... the article seems to equate the Douai Appendix with the KJ Apocrypha. Consider the words: Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. In the 18th century, the Apocrypha section was omitted from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version. In the 1979 revision of the Vulgate, the section was dropped. It seems that the article is confused. It needs to clarify that the Apocrypha is not the Appendix - or - separate out these comparisons ClemMcGann (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Canon

I propose replacing the Biblical Canon section of this article with a redirect to Biblical Canon. My reasons for this are

• a. The whole section is redundant to information found elsewhere, elsewhere, and elsewhere. Not to mention elsewhere.
• b. The information is off-topic. This article is about what the contents of various editions of the Bible are, not what they should be.
• c. This section, like the articles linked to above, is a magnet for "canonistas" who insert POV comments. It is difficult enough to keep the above articles clean and NPOV. Keeping this section here only adds to that workload.

Rwflammang 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this entire section is redundant. I vote to simply redirect to the biblical canon article. Timotheos 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Official status of the Apocrypha

The most recent "official" version of the Anglican Bible is the Revised Version. A great many websites erroneously claim that the 14 books of the KJV were "officially discarded" when this was first printed in 1881-5 (NT 1881, OT in 4 vols. 1885). This is simply untrue; a separate volume was devoted to the RV of the Apocrypha and printed as part of the set in 1895.Because of the ten-year gap, many sets of the first edition of the RV are presumably incomplete and these sources ignorant of its existence. Regardless of prejudicial views of its quality or authenticity, it has to be acknowledged that no Anglican Bible is complete without all 80 books. King Edward VII in fact refused the abridged version donated by the British Bible Society for his coronation in 1902.The RV was printed by Oxford University Press, and their site "OUP Chronology 1850 to 1925" confirms the above. There is a persistant misconception that the Apocrypha is in some way 'Roman'. In fact, it is included in the versions of Wycliffe, 1384; Coverdale 1535; Great Bible 1539; the Geneva or Puritan Bible of 1560; the Bishops version of 1568; the King James of 1611, and the revised of 1885-95.Unilateral statements of personal views do not alter this position, and unless it is at some future date rejected by a body of clerics with the appropriate authority (to revoke the 1881 decisions of the Convocation of Canterbury),at a universal church council, "Bel and the Dragon" will continue to enjoy equal ranking status with Genesis. Colcestrian 11:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Circular links

"For extra-biblical works sometimes referred to as apocrypha, see the article on apocrypha." That's insufficient; that article's section on biblical apocrypha just summarizes this article, and provides a link back to here. Nowhere are the actual non-canonical apocrypha (e.g. Acts of Pilate) mentioned. Let me attempt to provide better links to other apocrypha articles. Fuzzform (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... why isn't this article named "Old Testament apocrypha", in line with the other apocrypha articles in the side menu?? Fuzzform (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason it's not called "Old Testament apocrypha" is because it can include Laodiceans, which is decidedly not Old Testament. Another reason it's not called Old Testament apocrypha is because they are not placed in the Old Testament. That's kind of the whole point of this article. It's about those books that are found in the 3rd section of some bibles. This section is often called the inter-testamental section, to emphasise the fact that it is neither in the Old nor New Testament. It has also been called the appendix, emphasising the same thing. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to understand

The article is hard to understand. Leaving aside which faith one is, it's just a confusing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Books of the Bible is the good article

that one explains things properly. This one is hard to follow. There should be a link from this confusing article to that clear article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem per se with putting in a link to Books of the Bible. After all, someday it may be a good article. But at the moment it does not seem to have very much to do with the apocrypha; it is almost wholy devoted to the Old and New Testaments. There is a mention of the 39 Articles' apocrypha at the end, but no mention of, e.g. Clement VIII's apocrypha, or Martin Luther's. It is not clear why 39 Articles is more worthy of mention than these others. Obviously, Books of the Bible is a work in progress.

Another problem with that article is that it is vague. For instance, in one of the tables, there is a colum for the "Greek Orthodox Old Testament", whatever that is. Presumably it is the Old Testament of the Greek Vulgate. Of course, the Greek Vulgate Old Testament is used by Greek Catholics as well. Similarly, there is a "Slavonic Orthodox Bible", with no descriptions of the differences (if any) between that and the Slavonic Catholic Bible. There is a column for the Catholic Douay Bible, but no mention of other Catholic versions, like the Greek and Slavonic versions, or for that matter, of the Gutenberg Bible. There is a column for the "Protestant Old Testament" which agrees nicely with the King James Version, but not with the original Reina version. None of which is explained properly.

That article relies on vague generalities, ignorance of counter-examples, and an almost complete lack of references. It will not be winning any "Good Article" awards any time soon. I would hate to see this article follow that article's example.

Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and did I mention that the tables in that article are confusing? In addition to the vague column headings that I mentioned above, it has multiple instances of the same book appearing in different rows of the same table, which is counter-intuitive to me. Let's try to make this article more clear, rather than less clear. Rwflammang (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you one of the editors? I'm a pretty disinterested, intelligent, but not blibicla person. that other article expanded my knowledge. This one seems all inside baseball and wrapped up in itself.TCO (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Any constructive criticisms of this article which you may contribute would be greatly appreciated. Rwflammang (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just honestly felt that it was hard to understand. Seemed to be very much insider to insider (not appropriate to an encyclopedia). Also, and I'm not an expert, but it seems to be an article on one meaning of the word Apacrophya. Honest, Injun, the Books of the Bible was easier to understand and I gained something from looking at it. I know you are going to hate this, but my suggestion is to make this shorter and make it just an article about the term "apacrypha" (including the colloquieal meaning) and otherwise subordinate and mesh this article to fit with Books of the Bible. At a minimum, put a link to Books of the Bible (prominently). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a an article that describes the meaning of the word apocrypha at Apocrypha. This article used to be a section of that one. That article became (and still is IMHO) unwieldy, and so this article branched off and has a much tighter focus, namely those apocrypha which appear in bibles. Perhaps this narrow focus is what you are referring to as "inside baseball".

At any rate, I'll put a link to Books of the Bible in the intro. Rwflammang (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a second look, I see that Books of the Bible already appears in two places in the intro. How much more prominent would you like to see it? Rwflammang (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I still think that this article is unweildy, whether on it's own or as part of a larger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the coptic scripts 'Gospel According To Thomas' are counting to the apocrypha, too? Although there isn't written of the passion and resurrection and even about its not a 'classic Gospel', but I've read, that the Book of Thomas was listed to the apocrypha by theologians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeK (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas is not "Biblical apocrypha" in the sense that it is not in any bible. As the opening paragraph of the article say For extra-biblical works sometimes referred to, usually by Catholics, as apocrypha, see the articles on apocrypha and on Pseudepigrapha. - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Biblical apocrypha navigation template

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Biblical apocrypha. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the creation of this template. The use of term "Biblical Apocrypha" is a POV used by the Protestant tradition while in the Catholic tradition the same term has a different and wider meaning. Also in the Protestant tradition the list to include in the "Biblical Apocrypha" is different by denomination. Article "Biblical Apocrypha" clearly explains the limitation in the use of this term, while the Template cannot. A ntv (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree too, mostly for the same reasons as A ntv. LovesMacs (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the template is only anticipated to be used on the articles included in the template, to make it easier for editors to go from one to another and to, effectively, point out the most important articles relative to the subject. It certainly could be altered in such a way as to differentiate between the Catholic apocrypha and the Protestant apocrypha, or any others for that matter. And, for what it's worth, the template is based on the existing content of this article. John Carter (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the related articles already use {Books of the Old Testament} or {BibleRelated} templates. To add an other template means IMHO to overweight the article. A ntv (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Relation to deuterocanon

Hello, I know that biblical apocrypha and the deuterocanonical books are not exactly the same but I think that the deuterocanonical books should be mentioned in the introduction, because there is some overlap in the works discussed. LovesMacs (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, if the mention is worded carefully. I suspect that many readers who come to this page are actually looking for the article deuterocanonical books. Rwflammang (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The mention of deuterocanical shall be done carefully. I've undo a rewording that could seem offensive to some. In finding a rewording please consider the following scheme:

- for Catholics we have two groups of writings: the canonical/inspired (=Hebrew Bible + deuterocanonical) and the apocrypha (=all the others). pseudepigraphic means simply any text whose claimed authorship is unfounded.

- for Orthodox we have two groups of writings: the canonical/inspired (=Hebrew Bible + anagignoskomena) and the apocrypha (=all the others). pseudepigraphic means simply any text whose claimed authorship is unfounded.

- for the KJV we have three groups of writings: the canonical/inspired (=Hebrew Bible), the apocrypha (=a list in appendix to KJV) and the pseudepigrapha (=all the others).

of course the list of books in any category is different in the three views. This Article "Biblical apocrypha" (separated by Apocrypha) is a good try to find a NPOV simply because it use a not-contested definition ('are books published in an edition of the Bible whose canonicity the publisher either rejects or doubts') not giving a unique definition or list of these books. We shall stay in the same path, without giving POV definitions as "the deuterocanonical as part of the apocrypha " or "the pseudepigrapha are apocrypha". Nor we shall give the idea that deuterocanonical mean something less than canonical for who believe in them. A ntv (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about what to add. I think a sentence like "Different churches and congregations have differing views on what constitutes their biblical canon." can be added to the beginning of the second paragraph. What do you think about the words "protocanon" or "protocanonical"? LovesMacs (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok with the sentence. But the word "protocanon" creates confusions, giving the wrong idea that there was a agreed canon before to later additions. To mention the shared books, of course for the OT, it is better to use the term "Hebrew Bible". A ntv (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Interorthodox Commission in preparation for the next Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church says the Anagignoskomena "are to be distinguished from the canonical and inspired books as regards the authority of their divine inspiration, but they are to be considered, nevertheless, as part of Holy Scripture, and useful and profitable to the faithful" (Towards The Great Council, Introductory Reports of the Interorthodox Commission in preparation for the next Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, SPCK, London, 1972, page 4) Peter jackson (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity?

What the heck is "mainstream Christianity" supposed to mean? Presumably it means the Roman Catholic church, to which the plurality, if not the outright majority, of Christians belong. If that is the case, then the statement is not generally correct, but is only correct for the specific case of the apocrypha as listed in the Vulgate section. If it's supposed to mean Protestantism, then the statement is not generally wrong, but is too narrow to be a definition or even an adequate description, since the Apocrypha section of the Luther bible, the KJV, the GNB, the RSV, etc. is much larger than that found in the Vulgate or the DRB. Rwflammang (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Undefined terms should not be used in the intro. Rwflammang (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "mainstream Christianity" is not a correct term and it is also not clear. It looks like there is a consensus in the main part of Christianity (which?) to fix a list of "Biblical Apocrypha" as books which are not part of the canon; this is not true. The point is that there is not such a consensus, being the list of said "Biblical Apocrypha" very different between denominations.

I suggest a more neutral definition, something like: "The biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος meaning hidden) are books published in appendix of some editions of the Bible even if they are not considered part of the canon. Different churches and congregations have differing views on what constitutes their Biblical Apocrypha. " A ntv (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps a word other than 'appendix' - which was used in the original Douay. "a separate section"? - ClemMcGann (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I quibble a bit with "even if they are not considered part of the canon". The cited source expresses the reservation in terms of dubiousness. Perhaps, "despite not necessarily considered part of the the canon", or "even if their place in the canon be denied or doubted." I don't know. I share with User:Mk5384 a dissatisfaction with the current wording, even though I do not consider his edit to be an improvement. Rwflammang (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check the new introduction as edited. thanks A ntv (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ok - ClemMcGann (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Great work! Rwflammang (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that these books are generally not included in the Bible used by a certain branch of Christianity, unless that branch considers said book to be cannon.Mk5384 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

fair point, how about "typically printed separately or in a third section ..." - ClemMcGann (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The intro already makes clear that many or most current editions omit the apocrypha. The body of the article makes clear that such omissions became common by the 18th century. Before that apocrypha sections were common in Protestant bibles. Today they are more common in Protestant bibles than they are in Catholic ones. Rwflammang (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholic bibles don't have a apocrypha section, as such. Older Douays have an appendix with Esdras 3&4. The deutros are integrated into the OT - or are we talking in circles? ClemMcGann (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Bibles don't have an apocrypha section, because certain books that are considered apocryphal by the majority of Protestant denominations are considered cannon by Catholics.Mk5384 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok - ClemMcGann (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)