The Apocrypha - King James Version

Y2K2

The original 1611 King James contained the apocrypha! The apocrypha books were never part of the original Hebrew Bible. The apocrypha were part of the Greek Jewish Bible (old testament) around 200 BC. It was used by Greek speaking Jews. Jesus certainly would have been aware of it.

Today Jews and Protestants generally reject the apocrypha as being part of Old Testament. They are not accepted as being the inspired word of God.

However some traditions still regard them useful and use them in their liturgy. The apocrypha is useful for understanding the history of Israel.

I find it amusing that some of the King James only lobby are not aware the original KJV contained the apocrypha.

P A ( a former kjv only user, no longer)

David Ames

Assumption of Moses

Also try Testament of Moses

""Ceriani, on the basis of quotations in the Acts of the Council of Nicea and scattered patristic references, entitled the manuscript “The Assumption of Moses,” an account of Moses’ being taken directly to heaven rather than dying a natural death. This story is well known in many Jewish writings and is probably referred to in Jude 9.""

As found under "Moses, Testament of", in , vol. 4, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,

There is a translation:

CHARLES, R.H. “Assumption of Moses.” The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, Edited in Conjunction with Many Scholars. 2 vols. Ed. R.H. CHARLES. Oxford, 1913. 2.407–424.

AS reported in: A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research, 1850–1999

[[The results of your 15 minutes]]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/441510#Comment_441510

Today Jews and Protestants generally reject the apocrypha as being part of Old Testament.

Note that they are often called deuterocanonical (or similiar) in the traditions that use them. In this context it is also important to recognize that Anglicans and Lutherans generally don't consider themselves Protestant. This fall a Lutheran Study Bible on the Apocrypha was published which several users are anxiously awaiting in Logos.

tom

I think only of the bible.

Y2K2,

Just to let you know, there are many traditions that consider different books to be sacred & holy. And different Christian traditions use different deuterocanonical books as part of the Bible. The Bible that you read in a Protestant setting is different that the Bible you will read in a Roman Catholic setting, and both of these Bibles will be different than the Bible that you would read in an Ethiopian Orthodox setting. And all three of those Bibles will be different than.... [the list goes on]

I am also going to add to MJ's statement. MJ pointed out, deuterocanonical is the preferred term for the traditions that use these book. I will add that some people who consider the deuterocanonical writtings as sacred will also say that the term apocrypha is offensive.

You might want to take a look at this Community Price resource - it may help you with the background on this material:

Classic Commentaries and Studies on the Biblical Apocrypha / Deuterocanon (42 vols.)
http://www.logos.com/product/23959/classic-commentaries-and-studies-on-the-biblical-apocrypha-deuterocanon
probably well worth the investment of $40 to get that much background into these Jewish writings

You can expect that many of the Jews of Jesus day (including the Qumran community) would have been familiar with many of these writings.

If you read the stories of the Maccabean revolt for example, you may gain some insight into why many of the Jews of that time expected the Messiah might also be a military leader to drive out the Romans and you might get a better idea of what was going on in some of the festivals the Gospels refer to... and a better idea of what Jesus was refering to (related to what the people were celebrating and commenorating in those festivals) when He said many of the key things about who He was...

These Apocryphal books and much of the rest of the Second Temple literature give a good background as to the context into which the Gospel message was originally delivered.

A particularly useful volume in the above Community Pricing offering, that may help you connect what you have already looked into in the KJV Apocrypha is:

The Jewish Messiah: A Critical History of the Messianic Idea among the Jews from the Rise of the Maccabees to the Closing of the Talmud

Author: James Drummond

The object of The Jewish Messiah is twofold. It endeavors to exhibit the doctrine concerning the Messiah as it was held among the Jews in the centuries during which Christianity appeared; and, as subsidiary to this main purpose, it seeks to introduce the English reader to the apocalyptic and kindred literature. He divides his study into two parts: “Sources” and “History.” Before diving into the historical idea of the Messiah, Drummond offers a survey of the Sibylline Oracles, the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the fourth book of Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Psalms of Solomon, and more, plus valuable discussion of the Targums, the Talmud, and other rabbinical works.

Other useful volumes (in the same Community Pricing offering, 42 volumes total for $40) giving more background would be :

Judas Maccabeus and the Jewish War of Independence
The First and Second Books of Maccabees
The Age of the Maccabees

For those who have a little extra to invest, [*-)] you may want to look at

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
http://www.logos.com/product/4237/the-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha-of-the-old-testament-in-english

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, edited by R.H. Charles (1913 edition), is a collection of Jewish religious writings, mainly from the centuries leading up to the New Testament events. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament are arguably the most important non-biblical documents for the historical and cultural background studies of popular religion in New Testament times. The early church writers made use of these documents, and the New Testament even quotes or alludes to a few of them. The Epistle of Jude, for example, contains allusions to the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9) and the 1st Book of Enoch (Jude 14-16).

What is meant by "The King James Version" of the Apocrypha?

The King James Version is exactly what it says it is: an re-look, authorized by His Majesty King James, at the available texts and earlier translations such as the Apocryphal Books in the Coverdale Bible to produce a better and "official" translation updated into what was then "modern" English.

The translators involved did a good job (not perfect and a long way from today's standards given the additional ancient manuscript findings on which more recent translations have been based).

The Books of the Apocrypha were included in the authorized (KJV) version becasue they had "always been there", they were inherited as part of the tradition.

As for not being part of the "original" Hebrew Bible, well of course not: that only contained the five books Books of Moses. Over the course of their evolving History, additional Books were written, the Prophets, the History Books, the Wisdom literature... by the time of Jesus there were a number of different "sects" within Judasim and they did not all use the same set of "additional" books. Those infamous Samaritans rejected all the additions and kept to the orginal "Big Five".

After a start was made in the "Middle Ages" at translating the Holy Scriptures into local languages such as English, they tended to translate a book at a time, so the earliest publications did not contain everything - [not an easy task with the technology available at the time, getting teh New Testament Books and teh Psalms translated would be enough to wear out most people] (similar in many ways to many modern Commentaries which have volumes covering much less than all the Books in our Bibles). Coverdale was the first to assemble a complete translation, and that included the Apocrypha (at least all that were translated and hence available for him to assemble.) It is not always obvious as to whether the choice of which books to put in the Apocrypha was governed by much more than which were available with "reliable" translations at "press time".

There were some groups of Christians who rejected any translations as potentially faulty and prefered to have the scriptures taught to them by those who studied the classical languages (people in authority with this position led to a lot of translators being classed as heretics and burned). There were some groups who rejected anything but the New Testament Books as being unnecessary, some restricted themselves to only the Gospels, and other groups who were very concerned about which of the Jewish Books to accept as the "Old Testament", some accepting little more than the "Big Five", the Psalms and Isaiah (there being more than a little distrust of "the Jews" in the Middle Ages).

So who was it exactly that decided to delete the Apocrypha from the Authorized Version and retain the name King James Version ?

I am sure in today's society they would be up for a billion dollar law suit about breach of copyright.....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/441740#Comment_441740

So who was it exactly that decided to delete the Apocrypha from the Authorized Version and retain the name King James Version ?

Peace, David! Extremely well-written! *smile* Thank you!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/441746#Comment_441746

One of the greatest translators of the Bible was St Jerome!

Is it true that he was hesitant to include deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books in his translation the Latin Vulgate because he considered there place in the canon doubtful?

Any books on Jerome and the making of the Latin Vulgate in Logos?

P A

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442255#Comment_442255

Try a Search: Jerome NEAR vulgate as a start

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442269#Comment_442269

Found this:

Jerome (340–420), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Jerome said that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.”³³ He disputed across the Mediterranean with Augustine on this point. At first Jerome refused even to translate the apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death and “over his dead body” the apocryphal books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version (see chap. 29).

A General Introduction

to the Bible

Revised and Expanded

NORMAN L. GEISLER

and

WILLIAM E. NIX

P A

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442255#Comment_442255

because he considered their place in the canon doubtful?

From Wikipedia:

"A recurring theme of the Old Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for the Hebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) to the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. He stated that the Hebrew text more clearly prefigures Christ than the Greek. Among the most remarkable of these prologues is the Prologus Galeatus, in which Jerome described an Old Testament canon of 22 books, which he found represented in the 22-letter Hebrew alphabet. Alternatively, he numbered the books as 24, which he described as the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation casting their crowns before the Lamb."

The need to define a precise canon and the relationship between protocanonical/deuterocanonical books is a recent development - counter-Reformation in the West, a century or two ago in the Byzantine Church (if they bothered) and still open in most of the Eastern Church. There are also multiple understandings of what is meant by canon - appropriate for reading in formal church services vs. appropriate basis for doctrine. Several churches reject Revelation for the latter, fewer reject it for both but most print it in their Bible. The Letter to the Laodiceans appeared in most German Bibles long after being declared apocryphal.

Any books on Jerome and the making of the Latin Vulgate in Logos?

Not that I know of - but I've suggested several books on the making of the canon because it is an area where Logos' current offerings are limited. Three useful Logos offerings:

The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon
The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research
The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442276#Comment_442276

This from "The Canon of the Old and New Testaments ascertained... (A. Alexander, 1851) [ LLS:CANONOTNTASC]

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue:—"Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom,* Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."^†
Origen also says, "We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet." Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew.

Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel."*

Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner: "The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of twenty-two." And in his preface he adds, that "these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442276#Comment_442276

And this:

C. Vulgate (OT) An important landmark is reached in the Vulgate or Latin version of Jerome (see Versions). Jerome, on grounds explained in his Preface, recognized only the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical; under pressure he executed later a hasty translation of Tobit and Judith. Feeling ran strong, however, in favor of the other books, and ere long these were added to Jerome’s version from the Old Latin. It is this enlarged Vulgate which received official recognition, under anathema, at the Council of Trent (1546), and, with revision, from Clement VIII (1592), though leading Roman Catholic scholars (Ximenes, Erasmus, Cajetan) had previously made plain the true state of the facts.

International
Standard
Bible
Encyclopedia (rEVISED 1979)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442290#Comment_442290

then continuing....

Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: "Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit."

..........

Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more fully and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. In his general Preface to his version of the Scriptures, he mentions the books which he had translated out of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides them," says he, "must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor, are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must have been composed in that language." And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the Jews,) he says, "Let no one be disturbed that I have edited but one book under this name; nor let any one please himself with the dreams contained in the third and fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author; for, with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make but one book; and those things not contained in this are to be rejected, as not belonging to the Canon." And in his preface to the books of Solomon, he speaks of "Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; the former of which," he says, "he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the latter, which is never found among the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence." He then adds, "As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people, but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church."

Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, "The book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have passed it over." And in his preface to Daniel, "This book among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred Volume."

In the preface to Tobit, he says, "The Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith, he says, "Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to determine controversies."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442276#Comment_442276

Jerome said that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.

For fgh I'm not simply updating my previous post.

You realize, I assume, that this is exactly what many who include them in their canon would say - think Lutherans and Anglican in the West and, less strictly, the Catholic/Orthodox/Eastern church group. The only doctrine with a deuterocanonical only biblical defense that I can think of off the top of my head is creation out of nothing - 2 Macc. is the only explicit Biblical foundation.

However, I'm going to have to pull out of this thread as if is moving towards a theological discussion rather than an exchange of Logos resource/program information.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442294#Comment_442294

And this:

Yet Jerome’s view was never lost. Wycliff’s Bible (1382), translated from the Vulgate, cites Jerome in its decision to list the Apocrypha (minus 4 Ezra) as lacking authority.

EERDMANS DICTIONARY

of the bible

The next question is: Are we placing too much on Jeromes view point?

Is Jerome right?

P A[*-)][;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442302#Comment_442302

The next question is: Are we placing too much on Jeromes view point?

Is Jerome right?

I hope you (and any others) tempted to cross the guidelines of Logos show restraint. Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442294#Comment_442294

Of course neither Jerome nor Archibald would be aware of all the manuscript evidence we have access to today, and they never knew there were scrolls in jars in Qumran.... so they would not have known that the Qumran community had 151 Psalms in their Book of Psalms..... (among other issues).

If we want to get closest to the time of the Apostles, do we trust Jerome and his opinion ? Is Jerome's position consistent with his contemporaries, or do we have to go back to earlier Fathers and go with the "twenty two" books of the Hebrew Scriptures ?

Perhaps we should just decide to accept what was in the Authorized Version as having good reason to be there.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442309#Comment_442309

Peace [:#]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442303#Comment_442303

I hope you (and any others) tempted to cross the guidelines of Logos show restraint. Thanks.

I think what we can legitimately do is say that Logos is a great way to find resources where these types of question are examined in detail by a multitude of authors from different perspectives so that you can indeed decide for yourself whether you think Jerome "was right".

It would seem Jerome's position was that a text had to be authenticated as having a Hebrew original and a demonstrated use as authentic inspired scripture (rather than an apocryphal history of the nation such as Maccabees). It would indeed be interesting to speculate what his position might have been on scrolls he was not aware of (such as Qumran): (to quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Logos Edition, LLS: DSSBIBLE2002 )

Of all the Psalms found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic Text, and the Septuagint, Psalms 151A and 151B (preserved only in 11QPsa) are the only truly Davidic ones in terms of their autobiographical content. Of course, the superscriptions of many other Psalms ascribe them to David, but close examination of their contents does not unambiguously link any of them to actual events in his life. Psalm 151A, however, refers to David’s role as shepherd, his musical gift, his anointing by Samuel, God’s choice of him over his brothers, and his kingship. Psalm 151B is very fragmentary, but it contains a clear reference to David’s encounter with Goliath.

151B*

■ In the Septuagint, the book of Psalms ends with Psalm 151 as a single Psalm. In 11QPsa, however, the 11QPsa-Psalter ends with two distinct Psalms containing much of the material found in the Greek. (Psalm 151B is clearly a new Psalm because of its superscription.) Because of several differences between the two versions of Psalm 151, the Greek version cannot simply be a translation of the Qumran version. The text found in 11QPsa represents the original Hebrew with two originally separate Psalms, which the Greek translator has reworked and synthesized into a single Psalm.

1　At the beginning of [Da]vid’s po[w]er after the prophet of God had anointed him. 2　Then I [s]aw a Philistine uttering insults from the r[anks of the enemy]. I […] the […].

■ In 11QPsa the column containing Psalms 151A and 151B is followed by a blank column. The blank leather clearly shows that the collection found in 11QPsa actually ended with Psalm 151B, a version of which also ends the book of Psalms in the Septuagint. For the end of two more important collections indicated by blank leather, see the comments after Psalms 91 and 150, respectively.

Greetings all,

I am reading the book of Jude. When I came across the books' reference to the communication between Michael the archangel and Satan I looked it up. I found that this is a reference to the pseudepigraphical book The Assumption of Moses.

I thought maybe to find The Assumption of Moses in My Library but it was not there. I did however find The Apocrypha- King James Version.

When I think of the King James Version I think only of the bible.

What is meant by "The King James Version" of the Apocrypha?

Peace to you, Y2K2! *smile*

I am going to post a URL that was published by Concordia Publishing House, a partner of Logos Bible Software, to inform the constituents of the Lutheran Synod (LCMS) that I belong to. It is about the Lutheran Edition of the Apocrypha that has just been published and released by CPH. I'm a little hesitant about sharing the URL because of the parochial nature of the product. However, I checked; and this work will be published in Logos Format, hopefully in 2013. The information that it will become a Logos product comes from the Pastor who is the Publisher of Concordia Publishing House. So, finally I decided to post it. I truly hope that it is helpful and not a burden in any way, shape or form.

The reason that I'm putting this URL here that it answers some of the very valid and important questions that you, the original poster of this thread had expressed in your post. If you have time to spare, you will notice that the video is not just a single video, but a number of videos strung together. Some of the general history of the Apocrypha is referred to as well as Martin Luther's attitude over against the apocrypha. I personally am looking forward to buying this product when it becomes available in Logos Format.

                 Finally, many of the comments about the value of this book are NOT Lutheran ..........        for example: —James H. Charlesworth
Director and Editor, Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project
George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey                  and also: —Prof. Emanuel Tov, PhD
J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible
Hebrew University, Jerusalem                     and also: —Daniel C. Harlow, PhD
Professor of Religion, Calvin College
Editor, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism                       as well as a few others.

Here is the URL -- http://www.cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx?SearchTerm=apocrypha

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442381#Comment_442381

hopefully in 1913

I'm too late [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442325#Comment_442325

I think what we can legitimately do is say that Logos is a great way to find resources where these types of question are examined in detail by a multitude of authors from different perspectives so that you can indeed decide for yourself whether you think Jerome "was right".

[Y]

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442484#Comment_442484

hopefully in 1913

I'm too late

MJ, you are early. It is Concordia that is late.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442491#Comment_442491

hopefully in 1913

I'm too late

MJ, you are early. It is Concordia that is late.

Blessings, Tom and MJ! I've made lots of mistakes in my day; however, I think this is the first time I've been 100 years off! Thanks for noticing; and the edit has already been made to 2013! *smile*

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442498#Comment_442498

Here I thought maybe you were thinking of when the Lutherans switched from the longer German Bible to the shorter English one. At our age it's easy to get such things confused.[:D] -- Where are the grey-haired emoticons when I need them.