Perhaps a dumb question, but here goes. Are there commentaries on the apocrypha written by a protest

Myke Harbuck

Look for studies in the apocrypha written by protestants, or at least those who do not possess a catholic bent. (I know, my request seems odd and not likely to exist). 

Also, are there study Bible notes on the apocrypha, as there are on the protestant canon? If so, which might some of you recommend?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and wisdom.

Beloved Amodeo

Myke Harbuck said:

Look for studies in the apocrypha written by protestants, or at least those who do not possess a catholic bent. (I know, my request seems odd and not likely to exist). 

Also, are there study Bible notes on the apocrypha, as there are on the protestant canon? If so, which might some of you recommend?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and wisdom.

This a great question! I'll be very interested in the replies from those in the know like MJ and Dan. In the mean time you might be interested in this thread.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/171856.aspx 

DHG

I’m not in the know, but are you looking for something like this?

https://www.logos.com/product/28436/the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes 

Paul

Myke Harbuck said:

Look for studies in the apocrypha written by protestants, or at least those who do not possess a catholic bent. (I know, my request seems odd and not likely to exist). 

Also, are there study Bible notes on the apocrypha, as there are on the protestant canon? If so, which might some of you recommend?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and wisdom.

Hi Myke – I’m not sure how useful this list is, but I think most of them are from non-Catholic sources. Some of the older (public domain) ones are most likely Anglican scholars. Lange’s Commentary on the Apocrypha (2008) might be more useful along with the journal Semeia No. 38 (1986) and No. 80 (1997) though of course that depends on the area of your study.  Those listed below are part of my downloaded Logos library so should be available from Faithlife.  Hope this helps.  Keep well  Paul    

Ball, C. J. The Ecclesiastical or Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament Commonly Called the Apocrypha. London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Melbourne; Sydney; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode, n.d.

Brannan, Rick. “Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Agrapha: Texts and Transcriptions.” Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013.

Brannan, Rick. Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Agrapha: Introductions and Translations. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013.

Burke, Tony, and Brent Landau, eds. New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

Butler, Samuel. The Genuine and Apocryphal Gospels Compared. London; Derby: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; H. Mozley, 1822.

Charles, R. H. Index to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

Charles, Robert Henry, ed. Commentary on the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

Churton, W. R. The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures. London: J. Whitaker, 1884.

Cowper, B. Harris. The Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ. Fourth Edition. London; Edinburgh: Frederic Norgate; Williams & Norgate, 1874.

Daubney, William Heaford. The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church. London: C. J. Clay and Sons; Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Donehoo, James deQuincey. The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ. New York; London: The Macmillan Company; Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1903.

Ferrar, William John. The Uncanonical Jewish Books: A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha and Other Jewish Writings 200 B.C.–100 A.D. London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1918.

Gore, Charles, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, eds. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture: Including the Apocrypha. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942.

Hone, William, ed. The Apocryphal New Testament: Being All the Gospels, Epistles, and Other Pieces Now Extant. Londone: William Hone, 1820.

Hughes, H. Maldwyn. The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature. London: Charles H. Kelly, 1910.

James, Montague Rhodes, ed. The Apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.

James, Montague Rhodes. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Translations of Early Documents: Series I: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic). London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920.

Klauck, Hans-Josef. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003.

Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, and Edwin Cone Bissell. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Apocrypha. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.

Lawrence, C. E. The Wisdom of the Apocrypha. Edited by L. Cranmer-Byng and S. A. Kapadia. The Wisdom of the East Series. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1910.

MacDonald, Dennis R., ed. Semeia 38 (1986) - Apocryphal Acts of Apostles

Orr, James, ed. New Testament Apocryphal Writings. The Temple Bible. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Co.; J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903.

Oesterley, W. O. E. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935.

Robinson, J. Armitage, ed. Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Translated by Forbes Robinson. Vol. 4. No. 2. Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1896.

Snell, Bernard J. The Value of the Apocrypha. London: James Clarke & Co., 1905.

Stoops, Robert F., ed. Semeia 80 (1997) - The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives

Wayment, Thomas. The Text of the New Testament Apocrypha (100–400 CE). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Wicks, Henry J. The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature. London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915.

Yee, Gale A., Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber, eds. The Old Testament and Apocrypha. Fortress Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. 

 

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060648#Comment_1060648

I think apocrypha (Deutero's) and apocryphal are different worlds.

And I've never seen something Catholic, be Catholic with apocrypha. Indeed, they (MJ can correct) shy just as fast, especially Wisdom. Indeed, also the jewish side of the house (Sirach at best). I'd bet if Jerome had been more influential, there'd be 2 apocryphals.

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060650#Comment_1060650

Denise said:

I think apocrypha (Deutero's) and apocryphal are different worlds.

Thanks Denise. I am referring to the biblical apocrypha (deuterocanonical works), rather than the later apocryphal works, such as the additional "gospels."

Can you explain this:

Denise said:

And I've never seen something Catholic, be Catholic with apocrypha.

Thank you again. As always, you are very helpful and insightful!

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060648#Comment_1060648

Paul said:

Those listed below are part of my downloaded Logos library so should be available from Faithlife.  Hope this helps.  Keep well  Paul   

Thank you very much for the informative list, brother! God bless!

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060653#Comment_1060653

This is an introduction to the apocrypha: https://www.logos.com/product/156046/introducing-the-apocrypha-2nd-edition-message-context-and-significance The 1st Edition is still being sold if you don’t want to wait.

Also, Lange’s Commentary comments on the apocrypha: https://www.logos.com/product/5759/langes-commentary-on-the-holy-scriptures

Check your library, you might have something already 👍😁👌

DAL

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060652#Comment_1060652

 

Myke Harbuck said:

Denise said:

I think apocrypha (Deutero's) and apocryphal are different worlds.

Thanks Denise. I am referring to the biblical apocrypha (deuterocanonical works), rather than the later apocryphal works, such as the additional "gospels."

Can you explain this:

Denise said:

And I've never seen something Catholic, be Catholic with apocrypha.

Thank you again. As always, you are very helpful and insightful!

Well, as a thought-provoker, Christiandom (pre-monarchal catholic) largely 'saved' non-OT jewish writings (that's a terrible exaggeration). Philo, Josephus, and much of the apocrypha. And Christiandom packaging not only included the apocrypha, but Enoch, Barnabas, and Hermas, as examples.  Apparently, the idea was sources of 'be good' and 'we're right'.

It was later that the 'ancient's KJV' (LXX+ packaging) locked-in, that Jerome had little success unpackaging ... like the more modern KJV's holiness-ness.

But the actual apocrypha is largely either jewish history (Mac's), or jewish good-stories (Tobit, Judith, etc). Some pre-MT OT text (Jeremiah, etc) also showed up. Then you have Sirach (again very jewish), and Wisdom (which appear to underlie some of the NT, long before Catholic).

You end up with a package of jewish history writings, and little theological significance beyond Wisdom. Not much 'Catholic' to work with; far more liberal Protestant support (Wisdom). 'Catholic' scholarly discussion will tend to be more 'evangelical'-ish (oddly enough).

ADDED:

Just to think about (and our messianic jewish friends), inclusion of strongly jewish writings in early Christiandom, is in contrast to the strong anti-jewish writings largely beginning with Marcion, and then the 'Church Fathers'. A book I'm presently reading notes the odd close jewish-gentile relations among 'lay' Christians, but the strong anti-jewish from many Christian leaders. You wonder if the apocrypha was an early 'togather-ness' that held on, until Luther & Co. 

MJ. Smith

I think you have already been given an adequate list of commentaries, but I want to comment on the original question. The books that are included in the broader canon are based on accepting the LXX as the Old Testament canon rather than the Masoretic. See The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint by Mogens Müller. This canon with a variety of permutations is used by Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume a "Catholic bent" to commentaries on the deuterocanonicals unless by "catholic" you mean all of the above traditions. The Lutheran study notes I would recommend; Hermeneia commentaries (Lutheran publisher) include commentaries of the type you are requesting. I would highly encourage you to read The First Bible of the Church before the commentaries so that you better understand what you are looking at.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060660#Comment_1060660

Denise said:

You wonder if the apocrypha was an early 'togather-ness' that held on, until Luther & Co. 

I think you need to give precedence to Calvin here rather than Luther ... unless my memory of canon history is faulty.

Mr. Bultitude">

We have several pieces of evidence to say that Calvin affirmed the 66-book canon that has become known as the Protestant canon and rejected all other books as canonical.

The first piece of evidence is the 1559 French Confession of Faith, which he co-authored with De Chandieu. In article 3 of the confession, the 66 books are all named as "canonical" books of "the Holy Scriptures." In article 4 it says that "we can not found any articles of faith" upon "other ecclesiastical books."

Calvin names these "ecclesiastical books" in his 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent:

It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.

You may note that he mentions here every deuterocanonical book other than Baruch.

The next piece of evidence is the Geneva Bible, a 1560 English translation. David Hall makes the case that Calvin approved of the Geneva Bible:

Several things illustrate Calvin's imprimatur on this version. First, he used it in his own preaching; secondly, some of his closest disciples were involved in its translation; thirdly, publishings in Geneva at the time were approved by a committee of the Genevan Consistory, heavily populated by Calvin adherents; and fourthly, just prior to its publication, the church of Geneva requested that Calvin and Theodore Beza confirm William Whttingham’s NT translation. Without a doubt, Calvin approved of this 1560 translation.

In the table of contents of the 1560 edition, the deuterocanon (including Baruch) is in an "Apocrypha" section, and the Old and New Testaments include only the 66 books that Calvin affirmed in the 1559 French Confession (though the Prayer of Manasseh is listed with the Old Testament books with a note that it is apocryphal.)

Similarly, article 4 of the Belgic Confession lists the 66-book canon of Scripture, and article 6 enumerates the Apocrypha, including Baruch. Calvin wrote in a letter that he and the brothers of Geneva "heartily approve" of the Belgic Confession, which was written by a student of his, but wish it didn't attribute Hebrews to Paul. (A discussion of this letter is found in pages 67-70 of Nicolaas Gootjes' book The Belgic Confession, and the full text of the original is found in an appendix to the same.)

So to sum up, the evidence is as follows: Calvin's own French Confession of Faith, along with the Belgic Confession which his student wrote and he accepted, and the Geneva Bible which he also approved, names only the 66-book Protestant canon as canonical. And the Belgic Confession and Geneva Bible both explicitly regard each deuterocanonical book as non-canonical.

As for Baruch in particular, the webpage linked in the question gives examples of citations that are all from the 1530s -- though Calvin also calls Baruch a prophet in his 1546 commentary on 1 Corinthians -- which means he may have changed his mind between then and 1559 (possibly after 1547, since he doesn't mention Baruch in the Antidote to Trent). But an alternative would be that he's simply calling Baruch a prophet to give a common attribution that would be recognizable to his readers. This view makes more sense to me, given that a few of the passages mentioned by that webpage have Calvin saying, "Or whoever was the author." It seems he was simply adding weight to his arguments by quoting from an ancient Jewish writer.

In private, I refer to this short canon as the Calvin Canon.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060696#Comment_1060696

MJ. Smith said:

I think you need to give precedence to Calvin here rather than Luther ... unless my memory of canon history is faulty.

I hope I'm not getting too far from Myke's query.  Canon is hard to figure. For example, given Luther's straw James (and the book's iffy background), I thought he'd do more than a don't-like-it. What is that? Not inspired but keep?  I'd assume adding/cutting tradition is very difficult, unless there's a broader social agreement. Ergo my sneaky '& Co' ... and you're right.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060696#Comment_1060696

MJ. Smith said:

I think you need to give precedence to Calvin

What about Carlstadt's De canonicis scripturis (1520)?

And what about Zwingli, Oecolampadius and other Swiss reformators before Calvin?

Mr. Bultitude">

Similarly, article 4 of the Belgic Confession lists the 66-book canon of Scripture, and article 6 enumerates the Apocrypha, including Baruch. 

FYI:

The authoritative text of the Belgic Confession was established by the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619. It is this edition that added the enumeration of the Apocrypha to article 6. The original text written by Guido de Brès in 1561 is shorter and appears to leave some room for the public reading of the apocrypha and other ecclesiastical writings. The words "which the church may read and take instruction from" were retained in the 1619 edition but it is clear that they are now to be understood in the sense that individual believers can read these books.

The Synod of Dordt also commissioned the States Translation (the "Dutch KJV") in which the apocrypha were to placed at the back of Bible preceded by a clear warning to the reader. In contrast to the canonical books the apocrypha in the States Translation did not receive translator notes (which brings us back to the original topic of this thread).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060778#Comment_1060778

Thanks for the corrections.

HJ. van der Wal said:

Oecolampadius

Someone new to me ...I'll have to check him out.  

SineNomine

Myke Harbuck said:

Look for studies in the apocrypha written by protestants, or at least those who do not possess a catholic bent.

Where would you yourself consider the Eastern Orthodox as falling?

David Paul

Myke Harbuck said:

Look for studies in the apocrypha written by protestants, or at least those who do not possess a catholic bent. (I know, my request seems odd and not likely to exist).

Being careful not to assume what you are or are not assuming, can you identify the commentaries on the apocrypha that you first encountered that had the catholic bent you are seeking to avoid?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060696#Comment_1060696

MJ. Smith said:

I think you need to give precedence to Calvin here rather than Luther ... unless my memory of canon history is faulty.

As I understand it, Luther's movement certainly did bring the question of what exactly is "scripture" into discussion - a discussion that Luther himself applied to both Testaments, as evidenced by his comments about both James and Revelation. That said, Lutheranism is quite odd in that we do not have an official list of what works make the cut. My understanding is that Luther did translate all the books that the Church had handed down as scripture in his German Bible. But he did separate the "Apocrypha" from the Old Testament in it.

In the Lutheran Confessions, the Apocrypha is quoted and referenced - but in response to Papal opponents. I think it is interesting that we state that the Papal party is misinterpreting it - not that it is irrelevant for a doctrinal discussion. But the exact status of these writings is left open. In my opinion deliberately so. To me it seems as if the Confessions are much more interested in Christ as the savior of sinners than the exact limits of the Canon.

Ken McGuire

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060832#Comment_1060832

Ken McGuire said:

To me it seems as if the Confessions are much more interested in Christ as the savior of sinners than the exact limits of the Canon.

That's (sort of, not to overstate) where my interest lies. The apocrypha (deuterocanon) just doesn't offer much to non-jewish participants, beyond a secular interest, or the liberal side of protestants ('righteousness' by Jesus = Sirach, Paul's early theology = Wisdom). So, given the heavy anti-jews pattern, both Catholic, and the Protestant, why did the Apocrypha survive?  I'd think, it's by its very early inclusion in the church (presumably).