Question about Apocrypha

[Emily]

I have heard, during arguments concerning the Apocrypha's place in the KJV, that there was no introduction before the apocrypha, stating that it wasnt inspired, and that it was just there.

however


Im wondering if these books were separate from the rest of the bible.. like.. was there the old testament, the apocrypha, and then the new testament?


My grandmother passed away this morning. She was catholic. When we were at the nursing home last night, I happened to notice a New American Catholic bible. I opened it up, and saw nothing that said Apocrypha, or Deuterocannonical books. Instead, I was surprised to see that the different books were simply integrated into the old testament, and they were not necessarily in order together.

I can see now where maybe the KJV translators had the apocrypha in there, but since it was separate, it would be understood that it was not considered inspired by them.

 

[gb93433]

The Catholic Church recognizes them as deuterocanonical. However they see them as a part of a second canon.

Some parts of the apocryphal books are quoted in the NT but that does not mean they are a part of the canon.

 

[Emily]

no no no no no

what I mean, is that THIS is how the Old Testament is listed in the catholic bibles

Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Josue
Judges
Ruth
1 Kings
2 Kings
3 Kings
4 Kings
1 Paralipomenon
2 Paralipomenon
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobias
Judith
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Canticles
Wisdom
Ecclisiasticus
Isaias
Jeremias
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezechiel
Daniel
Osee
Joel
Amos
Abdias
Jonas
Micheas
Nahum
Habacuc
Sophonias
Aggeus
Zacharias
Malachias
1 Machabees
2 Machabees


The deuterocannonical books are AMONG the books that we take as scripture.

Was it this way in the KJV1611?

 

[David J]

The AV1611 was listed as:

The OT
then
Apocrypha
then
The NT

It was put it the middle, but it was referenced by the AV1611 translators in both the OT and NT. I have yet to see anything in the AV1611 that implies that they are not scripture( but then I may be wrong) or if they are scripture. They did find them important enough to cross reference these books. Either way this can be confusing to a newbie Christian. I'm sure that this was debated during the making of the KJV.

If anyone has any information on this I would greatly appreciate it also.

David

 

[Dr. Bob]

Few, if any, actually use a 1611KJV so the Apocrypha is a moot issue. It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today.

(It WAS inbetween the OT and NT and in the 1611 was called "scripture" in the daily reading schedule, etc. But by and large it was a "cultural" inclusion, not a belief that the apocryphal books were = to the real canon.)

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Emily:

The deuterocannonical books are AMONG the books that we take as scripture.

Was it this way in the KJV1611?

Emily, if you will go to my website you can download a pdf copy of a real 1611 front pages of each section.

It has the "Old Testament"
the "Apocrypha"
and the "New Testament"

I have placed three pages--the first page of each as an example to be downloaded so you can see exactly how the 1611 introduced them. There were NO other extra pages of introduction between these pages. The only other pages of introduction were of the entire Bible at the front of the book. If you have a free Adobe reader, download the three page example at:

http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf

Anybody can download it. I have provided it free of charge so that you can see exactly how the 1611 introduced the first book of each section. The apocrypha is in a section of its own right between the OT and NT---not at all like the Catholic Bible.

 

[Rosell]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Few, if any, actually use a 1611KJV so the Apocrypha is a moot issue. It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today.

(It WAS inbetween the OT and NT and in the 1611 was called "scripture" in the daily reading schedule, etc. But by and large it was a "cultural" inclusion, not a belief that the apocryphal books were = to the real canon.)

On what evidence do you base that?

1. The Apocrypha was officially included in the 1611 King James Version, authorized by the Anglican Church.

2. The Anglican church never, in any official church action or statement, declared the Apocrypha to be less inspired, or not inspired. Even today, many Episcopal churches in America, especially on the East Coast, use the Oxford Bible with Apocrypha, arranged in the same way as Catholic Bibles.

3. The King James Version is an official and authorized product of the Anglican church.

4. Quotes from the Apocrypha are included in the Book of Common Prayer, and are not distinguished from other scripture that is quoted.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Rosell:
The Anglican church never, in any official church action or statement, declared the Apocrypha to be less inspired, or not inspired.

Simply untrue. The 39 Articles of Religion, the official Doctrinal Statement of the Church of England says,

Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

As you can see from Article 6, the Church of England has never considered the Apocrypha as part of the canon. The list identifies the Old Testament canon, the other books, then the New Testament canon.

Dr. Bob is correct.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Rosell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Few, if any, actually use a 1611KJV so the Apocrypha is a moot issue. It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today.

(It WAS inbetween the OT and NT and in the 1611 was called "scripture" in the daily reading schedule, etc. But by and large it was a "cultural" inclusion, not a belief that the apocryphal books were = to the real canon.)

On what evidence do you base that?

1. The Apocrypha was officially included in the 1611 King James Version, authorized by the Anglican Church.

2. The Anglican church never, in any official church action or statement, declared the Apocrypha to be less inspired, or not inspired. Even today, many Episcopal churches in America, especially on the East Coast, use the Oxford Bible with Apocrypha, arranged in the same way as Catholic Bibles.

3. The King James Version is an official and authorized product of the Anglican church.

</font>[/QUOTE]Where did you get these ideas?

You may be right about the Episcopal churches. Regardless of their historical trail, they have adopted many Catholic themes; including the possible use of the Apocrypha. A modern Episcopal church (especially in our area)is typically much closer in doctrine to a Catholic church than a Baptist Church. In fact, the only visible difference between our local Epsicopal church and Catholic church besides the name is the fact that the ministor of the Episcopal is gay and has a boy-friend. The church split down the middle but the Episcopal headquarters is subsidizing the church for the lost members.

You seem to think that the Apocrypha should be included...is this just a bad assumption on my part or do you believe this? ...or are you making an argument against the KJV by making these statements? Just curious.

 

[mioque]

"It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today."
Well there I know of at least one baptist church in the Netherlands (not my own, by the way) that has adopted the official Dutch RC Bibleversion as it's churchbible.
Presumably they don't use the Apocrypha.

 

[robycop3]

From the Merriam Webster's Online:

Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: -f&l
Function: adjective
1 : of doubtful authenticity : SPURIOUS
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha
synonym : see FICTITIOUS

Ask any RC what 'deuterocanonical' means & he/she will tell you it means a SECOND CANON. They also regard ORAL TRADITION as authoritative.

I don't think they wanna tell ya what "Bah! Humbug!" means.

 

[HankD]

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

Yes, but here we see the equivocation of the CofE to which Dr. Bob alluded. They quote "Saint" Jerome who suggest that we use these books as an "example of life" and "instruction of manners" e.g. praying to God for the disposition of the souls of the dead.
The Church of England was born out of a failed royal marriage which the Church of Rome would not allow to be annulled. They continue to this day with romish practices and a division of "high" and "low" Church.

Many Church of England local churches are almost indistinguishable from RC churches in design or practice. CofE Churches are often named after "Saint Mary".

http://www.btinternet.com/~mistleybenefice/mistleyparishchurch/index.html

HankD