The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha

This morning I was discussing the Canon and the Apocrypha of the Bible with someone. This person insists that the Apocrypha is essential to the Bible and should be studied as well as the Bible. What is a good source for explaining why the Apocrypha is excluded from the King James Bible and many current Bibles?

Thanks.

Susan Murphy

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Joseph Sollenberger

The contents of the Apocrypha have been treated in a variety of ways by the various Christian traditions. Many are surprised to find that it was included in the Geneva Bible and also in the KJV at the beginning. Whether or not the Apocrypha is essential very much depends on ones fundamental assumptions related to the Canon as influenced by their faith tradition. There will be no agreement or closure on the value of the Apocrypha other than the idea that, at the minimum, it provides historical and cultural information for the time frame between the those portions of scripture accepted by all Christians. Personally, I find that the books of the Maccabees are fascinating for information that explains how political alliances between Judaea and Rome began. I had always wondered on what basis Rome laid claim to a valid interest in Judea.

It is always useful to understand how and why different traditions develop.

In Logos, the major dictionaries should give useful background information.

Happy Researching,

Joseph

Jan Krohn

https://www.logos.com/product/26313/baker-encyclopedia-of-christian-apologetics

https://www.logos.com/product/10541/the-journal-of-biblical-apologetics-vol-3-part-1-modern-roman-catholicism

Rosie Perera

Here are some resources on the Canon that explain the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Apocrypha. And no doubt MJ Smith will tell you that there are many more versions of the canon than just one that includes the Apocrypha (Catholic) and one that doesn't (Protestant). And she can probably recommend resources that discuss all those differences.

https://www.logos.com/product/39629/biblical-canon-its-origin-transmission-and-authority

https://www.logos.com/product/39627/exploring-the-origins-of-the-bible-canon-formation-in-historical-literary-and-theological-perspective

https://www.logos.com/product/2979/the-canon-of-scripture

https://www.logos.com/product/165168/from-god-to-us-revised-and-expanded-how-we-got-our-bible

https://www.logos.com/product/45776/how-the-bible-was-built

https://www.logos.com/product/47460/the-making-of-the-new-testament-origin-collection-text-and-canon

https://www.logos.com/product/29778/the-origin-of-the-bible

https://www.logos.com/product/5685/the-septuagint-as-christian-scripture-its-prehistory-and-the-problem-of-its-canon

Here's a quote from the Festal Letter XXXIX of Athanasius which is relevant to your inquiry:

"For, in truth, the Apocrypha are fables, and attention directed to them is vain, because they are vain and abominable voices. For this means beginnings of dissensions and a like goal is quarrelling among men, who do not care about the Church’s advantage, but long to receive honour from those whom they have deceived, that people may think of them that they are great, because they make known new things (words). So it is fitting that we reject such books; for, even if we find a useful word in them, yet it is good not to believe them." Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, Studies in Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 216.

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054045#Comment_1054045

Susan, a couple of interesting facts:

1) the translators of the KJV did produce a version of the Apocrypha

2) there are multiple versions of the Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic version differs from the Greek Orthodox version

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054045#Comment_1054045

https://www.logos.com/product/2979/the-canon-of-scripture

I'm currently reading this book. Surprisingly, it is mildly pro Apocrypha, and will not help in the initial question.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

What is a good source for explaining why the Apocrypha is excluded from the King James Bible and many current Bibles?

Search suggestion is Luther WITHIN 11 WORDS apocrypha

Search refinement is: (Jerome,Luther) WITHIN 11 WORDS apocrypha

Keep Smiling [:)]

Kiyah

There's a good article in the Faithlife Study Bible that may be a good start called "The Formation of the Old Testament." The article also suggests these books for further reading:

https://www.logos.com/product/3188/the-old-testament-canon-of-the-new-testament-church

https://www.logos.com/product/39629/biblical-canon-its-origin-transmission-and-authority (already mentioned by Rosie)

https://www.logos.com/product/52304/the-origin-of-the-bible-a-guide-for-the-perplexed

https://www.logos.com/product/31140/the-character-of-christian-scripture-the-significance-of-a-two-testament-bible

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054045#Comment_1054045

Here's a quote from the Festal Letter XXXIX of Athanasius which is relevant to your inquiry:

"For, in truth, the Apocrypha are fables, and attention directed to them is vain, because they are vain and abominable voices. For this means beginnings of dissensions and a like goal is quarrelling among men, who do not care about the Church’s advantage, but long to receive honour from those whom they have deceived, that people may think of them that they are great, because they make known new things (words). So it is fitting that we reject such books; for, even if we find a useful word in them, yet it is good not to believe them." Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, Studies in Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 216.

Rosie, not wishing to argue, etc. I think you have the Festal Letter 39 (Schaff Nicene and Post Nicene v4). Athanasius notes the fathers recommend the apocrypha, though they're not canon (para 7) ... 'instruction in the word of godliness'. He seems to combine both the jewish Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and popular NT apocrypha like Didache and Hermes. His 'apocryphal' seems to be the unapproved (gnostic, etc).

Again, just discussing.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054048#Comment_1054048

https://www.logos.com/product/2979/the-canon-of-scripture

I'm currently reading this book. Surprisingly, it is mildly pro Apocrypha, and will not help in the initial question.

It's probably good for someone to understand the other side's arguments when trying to make a persuasive case. You're better prepared that way to rebut their rebuttals. Then again I also think we all can stand to examine our own preconceived notions and see if they stand up to alternative viewpoints. It might be that we'd want to moderate the strength of our dogmatism on our position once we find out more.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054076#Comment_1054076

Here's another resource:

https://www.logos.com/product/43264/how-we-got-the-bible

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054082#Comment_1054082

Regardless of whether one believes the apocrypha to be Scriptures, one should read them and think through what they show about Second Temple Judaism. Without these we are missing often essential links between the OT and the NT. These includes important topics such as why it is assumed in Jesus' teaching that there is an archenemy of God and His people, why exorcisms are important in the NT but hardly in the OT, why the resurrection of the just is now foremost instead of blessing in this life, why it is okay even expected that the just may die as a martyr, what are apocalypses and how does that help us read and understand Revelation. Many of those topics cannot be limited to the apocrypha but also to other Jewish literature in the 2nd Temple period.

So these need to be studied just as much as one may read on Corinth or Ephesus when studying Pauline epistles. You can of course get some of this distilled in good dictionaries but one always get a better sense when the primary sources have been read.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054090#Comment_1054090

Regardless of whether one believes the apocrypha to be Scriptures, one should read them

I agree. Regardless of one's views about them, I think they should be read. In addition to helping us understand the time between the OT and NT, I have found some very encouraging and uplifting passages in them.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054097#Comment_1054097

I have found some very encouraging and uplifting passages in them.

When I was a young believer, the way these books were described to me sounded as if they were sect-like materials, you know, don't read lest you be led astray. But whatever we think of the theological viewpoints expressed in these writings, these books were written about God, His Kingdom, Israel, the nations, faith, righteousness, and wisdom. In other words, they promote the faith of Israel and much of the biblical values.

Susan W. Murphy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054037#Comment_1054037

Mr. Sollenberger,

Thanks for the info. I've never read the Apocrypha but plan to do that now. Especially, Maccabees for the historical info. I still believe that it isn't inspired but think it will help me understand the culture of the times better.

Sincerely,
Susan Murphy

Susan W. Murphy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054038#Comment_1054038

Jan,

I'll have to check out these books.

Thanks.

Susan Murphy

Susan W. Murphy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1054045#Comment_1054045

Here are some resources on the Canon that explain the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Apocrypha. And no doubt MJ Smith will tell you that there are many more versions of the canon than just one that includes the Apocrypha (Catholic) and one that doesn't (Protestant). And she can probably recommend resources that discuss all those differences.

https://www.logos.com/product/39629/biblical-canon-its-origin-transmission-and-authority

https://www.logos.com/product/39627/exploring-the-origins-of-the-bible-canon-formation-in-historical-literary-and-theological-perspective

https://www.logos.com/product/2979/the-canon-of-scripture

https://www.logos.com/product/165168/from-god-to-us-revised-and-expanded-how-we-got-our-bible

https://www.logos.com/product/45776/how-the-bible-was-built

https://www.logos.com/product/47460/the-making-of-the-new-testament-origin-collection-text-and-canon

https://www.logos.com/product/29778/the-origin-of-the-bible

https://www.logos.com/product/5685/the-septuagint-as-christian-scripture-its-prehistory-and-the-problem-of-its-canon

Here's a quote from the Festal Letter XXXIX of Athanasius which is relevant to your inquiry:

"For, in truth, the Apocrypha are fables, and attention directed to them is vain, because they are vain and abominable voices. For this means beginnings of dissensions and a like goal is quarrelling among men, who do not care about the Church’s advantage, but long to receive honour from those whom they have deceived, that people may think of them that they are great, because they make known new things (words). So it is fitting that we reject such books; for, even if we find a useful word in them, yet it is good not to believe them." Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, Studies in Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 216.