Let’s talk Bible – Deuterocanonicals

As a Catholic, I did not realize (until recently anyway) that my version of the Holy Bible is slightly different from some Protestant versions. Through my Biblical Studies at Liberty, I learned that the Deuterocanonical (or Apocrypha) books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch (and some other things), are not in many newer King James Bibles, even though they were in the original 1611 version.

Anyway, for lack of time I suppose, Liberty didn’t give this issue much coverage. They basically said that they respected the books, but didn’t consider them to be at the same level as, or on par with, the other books of the Bible.

This made me curious, so I did some Google research. Some sites said the cut-out books contained false teachings, and other sites (like this one: www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm) defended them.

Other sites say that several other books (seven more for a total of eighty, I think) were contained in the 1611 King James Bible. See www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html. These books are not in my Catholic New American Bible, or the King James Bible that Liberty gave me. I can’t figure out why.

So to all of the Biblical scholars, does your religion believe these books are worthy of inclusion? I would like to see which religions include them, and which ones do not. In addition, I am curious as to why your particular religion feels the way it does about these books.

If any of you find this as interesting as me, maybe you can explain it.

 

I can't provide you with any answers... only with more questions. I too have wondered about the Apocrypha and its relevancy and why it was excluded from the Protestant bibles. I would very much like to read the Apocrypha, but haven't known where to search for one.

In the Protestant bible, we have the book of Jude, which is probably as close to the Apocrypha as you can get. Jude talks about some interesting things, to include an argument that occured between the devil and Michael the Archangel over the bones of Moses. Think about that and try to figure it out!!! Jude also talks about some antedeluvian angels who "did not keep their first estate" and who are now chained up in darkness. Some people have speculated that means that they comingled with earthly women to produce the Nephelium. But alas, that's an entirely different story!!!

Anyways, I too am interested in the Apocrypha.

 

The English translation of the Catholic Bible with Apocrypha (the Latin Vulgate) is known as the Douay Version. You might also look for a New Jerusalem Bible. I'm sure I've also had a couple of other versions of the Bible with Apocrypha, but I can't seem to loc ate which box has all my old theology books in it. My $0.02.

 

The Protestant version of the Book of Daniel only goes up to Chapter 12; thus Chap. 13 (Daniel and Susanna) and Chap. 14 (Daniel, Bel, and the Dragon) are treated as apocryphal. One of the Bibles with Apocrypha that I used to have, but can't find now, had something called The Rest of Esther.

Apparently, anything in the Old Testament that was originally in Greek got ripped out of the Bible and called Apocrypha by the Protestants.

 

Christian History magazine, edited by A. Kenneth Curtis and Mark A. Noll, and which apparently has (?)/had (?) some connection with the Billy Graham Institute, once had an issue entitled "How We Got Our Bible." It might still be available as a still-orderable back issue.

 

Available online at http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1994/43 as long as you pay a subscription. At $7.95 for a month, it should be possible to find plenty of interesting articles in the back issues to justify the cost!

Thanks for the reference, Ted, it could be quite useful for some of my classics courses for next year.

I've just had a look at my husband's Oxford Bible Commentary, and it's got a 150 page section on the apocrypha, and should be available in most libraries.

Angela

 

I appreciate the responses everyone. Ted, I will check out the reference you provided. Me Again, does your Bible have 66 books or 73? My New American Catholic Bible has 73, 7 more than my KJV. But, even my New American is missing books according to one of the websites I listed above.

On a side note, you may want to check out www.biblesondvd.com. I just bought a complete New Living Translation for myself and a complete KJV for my neighbor. I contacted the site and they will be coming out with a New American in the near future. They may eventually provide an Apocrypha supplement.

Either way, I have listened to Genesis (took about 3 hrs) and much Exodus so far. I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to lounge and listen to the Holy Bible. The background sounds, different voices, on screen follow along text, and Biblical slide show features are awesome. At $30 it is a great bargain, and I highly recommend it.

 

My KJV has 66 books to it. I also bought the KJV bible on CD and have been listening to it every night before going to bed. It's been a wonderful investment. However, I would love to be able to find the Apocrypha on CD....

 

I'm the media center director for my church, so I went to one of the sites from which I get books and they had an Apocrypha:

Apocrypha at christianbooks.com



They also had several Bibles with it.

 

I'm the media center director for my church, so I went to one of the sites from which I get books and they had an Apocrypha:

Apocrypha at christianbooks.com



They also had several Bibles with it.

 

well, they also had a CD, but YIKES, it's $250!

Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English on CD-ROM

 

Most of my Bibles are Protestant Bibles with 66 books, which is 39 OT and 27 NT. My New Jerusalem Bible, which has the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira, and Baruch) has 70 books, but that's because 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles are collapsed into Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

 

I also believe that many of the books left out of the protestant versions were done so because of the fact that they were pseudopigraphical (is that a word) writings.

I think that some found it difficult to consider works that contained lies in the title to be worthy of inclusion in the Bible.

I'm sure that the scholar's around here can offer more info...

 

All would acknowledge that I'm not biblical scholar, including me.

But let me tell you one reason that I have for thinking that the present version of the Bible with 66 books is the correct one. This is a bit mystical and esoteric, but interesting none the less.

The prophet considered by many to be the the "most major" of the Major Prophets is Isaiah. And the manner in which Isaiah has traditionally been broken up going way back to antiquity, is in 66 chapters. These chapters are like a mini version of the Bible itself: the first 39 chapters discussing primarily G-d's judgment, the latter 27 His mercy, the first verse of which, in chapter 40, starts out with: "Comfort...My people...".

The parallels are sometimes startling: the 40th chapter starts off with a prophecy about John the Baptist, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness", and then transitions into what can only be termed as very Messianic prophesies about One who would come to Jerusalem: "The glory of the L-rd shall be revealed..." "Oh Jerusalem...behold your G-d!" The balance of Isaiah is pretty much along those lines: numerous prophesies about Jeshua "By His stripes we are healed...", many words about G-d's mercy being revealed and poured out.

In so many ways, the the first 39 chapters of Isaiah are about G-d's judgment against His people for their hard-heartedness (like in the 39 books of the Old Testament), while the latter 27 chapters of Isaiah are a mirror of the latter 27 books of the Bible, and His mercy.

I think it's prophectic in ways that Isaiah and those who helped complie his work back in antiquity could never have dreamed!

 

This can really get complicated because the apocrypha does not have a consistent history either. It has included as many as 18 books (i think), to 14 books, to the 12 canonical books of the Catholic Bible.

But here is a quick summary. The Septuagint had 53 books (39OT and 14 AP). This was the source of the Latin Vulgate (which had 80 - 39 + 14 + 27 NT). The Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Geneva Bibles had 80, just as the 1611 KJV had 80.

The 14 included are:
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
[Additions to Esther]
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Don't know a thing about Catholic Revisions, but I think yours only has 12 of those.

There is a ton of arguement about who, when, and why the 14 were removed, but it was somtime between 1600 (some copies of the Geneva Bible) and 1885.

This is not exactly accurate. The LV had 80 books (39 + 14 + 27). The Douay is the first English translation of the Catholic Bible (sorry I don't know the source of the translation) but has the Catholic Revisions to the Apocryha.

Not entirely true. The original Hebrew Manuscripts contain only the 39 Books of the Protestant Bible --- This is the basis for the current Protestant translations. But remember all current translations of the Bible have undergone revision.

I could write pages on this stuff, if anyone wants anymore detail, PM me and we can share.

 

The word you're looking for is pseudepigraphal.

 

OK. Here's the deal, more or less.

The Hebrew mss. of the Tanakh/Old Testament contain the equivalent of the 39 books found in "Protestant" Bibles.

When the ancient Jews (Greek-speaking) living in Egypt did the translation of the Tanakh into Greek called the Septuagint, other books were included--pretty much the modern "Apocrypha".

Later on, Christians took the Septuagint as their OT. Jews did not accept the "extra" books as canonical ("real Bible").

Still later, the great biblical scholar and translator St Jerome--a testy Balkanoid, I might point out--took the rather obvious step, but extremely controversial, of studying with Jewish scholars. In preparing the Vulgate, which became the standard Latin translation, St Jerome wished to follow the "veritas Hebraica", or Hebrew truth. This included a) following Hebrew mss when they disagreed with the "official Christian" Septuagint and b) siding with the decision to regard the extra books in the Septuagint as less-than-fully-credentialed Bible. With much exceedingly angry correspondence, St Jerome prevailed pretty much on a) but did not win the day on b). So the extra books were included in the Vulgate.

Results so far--Jews: Tanakh in Hebrew
Greek-speaking Christians: Septuagint
Latin-speaking Christians: Vulgate
Syriac-speaking Christians: Peshitta.

Got it?

With the renewed interest in studying Hebrew and in a philological approach to all ancient texts which characterised both the Renaissance and the Reformation, interest in the Hebrew text of the OT was renewed among Western Christian biblical scholars. There are historical howlers in some of the "extra" books and a very fleeting reference in either 1 or 2 Maccabees to prayer for the dead. These facts set off Lutheran and Protestant biblical scholars about the "extra" books; the second fact set off Roman Catholic scholars.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Results:
Roman Catholics defined the OT canon at the Council of Trent as including all the books in the Septuagint and final edition of the Vulgate.
Lutherans never actually defined a list of canonical books of the Bible.
Protestants defined the OT canon as including only the "veritas Hebraica" in the form of the 39 books.

However (you knew there'd be a however in here):
The Church of England said it was OK to read lessons from the "Apocrypha" in church services, but not to base doctrine on them.
Puritans, of course, would have none of this.
Lutherans said they were especially good books to read but not really Bible, and did not permit lessons from the "Apocrypha" in church services.

Consequently by the 20th Century:
Jewish Bibles omit them entirely.
Catholic Bibles got 'em interspersed with the other OT books.
Anglican Bibles--until joint Bible publication with Dissenters started--had 'em in a separate section in the KJV between OT and NT.
Lutheran Bibles--until dunderheaded attempts to "blend in" with Protestants combined with Americanization pressures shortly after WWI--had 'em in a separate section between OT and NT.
Protestant Bibles omit them entirely.

However (there's no pony in here anywhere, just a second "however"):
Study Bibles done under ecumenical/liberal auspices normally include the "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical" (second-string canonical) books in a separate section between OT and NT.
Some excellent examples of ecumenical/liberal study Bibles, my doctrinal opinion of their notes notwithstanding (you can imagine, I suppose!), include the Harper-Collins (NRSV), New Oxford Annotated (NRSV), Catholic Study Bible (NAB), and Oxford Study Bible (REB).

Disclaimer: I am not much of a biblical scholar. A detail here or there may not be quite exact. Also, Orthodox churches, at least some, have a couple more very small books in the OT. I believe the first two study Bibles mentioned above explain why, but I don't remember the explanation.

 

Not quite. What is this Peshitta of the Syriac Christians, might I ask?

 

Hummmm, thanks for the link. I might have to break down and buy it.

 

Several people have posted excellent background material on the Deuterocanonical books; I'll just tell you where to read them for free.

If someone wants to read the Deutercanonical texts, there is no need to buy the Apocrypha immediately; you can read the Apocrypha in one of the following versions available online. The older translations (King James, Douay-Rheims) are more generally available for dowload. More modern translations with downloadable versions include the Revised Standard Version and the New English Translation (NET doesn't include all the Apocrypha). The New American Bible, the Good News Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version are also readable modern translations with Apocrypha, but you'll have to read them online. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem translations are also very readable modern translations with Apocrypha, but they have not been not authorized for online release in English. I've heard that the Revised English Translation also is good, and it is available with Apocrypha, but it is not available in a free online version.

esword software
http://www.e-sword.net/
download
Versions with Apocrypha include
King James (one version of it)
Douay-Rheims

New English Translation (partial Apocrypha)
http://www.bible.org/
download or read online

Revised Standard Version
http://religionanddemocracy.lib.virginia.edu/library/tocs/rsv.browse.html
Download in Microsoft ebook format or Palm format

New American Bible
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm
read online

New Revised Standard Version
http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm
read online

Revised Standard Version
http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/
http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
read online

Good News Bible (Today's English Version)
http://www.studylight.org/
read online

Douay-Rheims
http://www.scriptours.com/bible/
read online

Catholic Public Domain Version (not complete; work in progress)
http://sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm
read online

King James Version (with extensive illustrations)
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~lwinton/
read online

Jerusalem Bible (only the French version is available online)
http://bibliotheque.editionsducerf.fr/
read online

----------------------
I haven't found the Apocrypha in a free audio version online, but you can listen to and download audio bibles from the following sites:
http://www.audiotreasure.com/
http://mp3.ebible.org/webaudio/