NABRE Interestingly Cross-Refs the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon

I already liked NABRE for its copious notes (informational, not necessarily theological). NET is also good, but doesn't cover the OT apocrypha.

But NABRE also inter-links the apocrypha to the OT. I was surprised, and after several, I started watching for them. I checked RSV and NRSV ... no such luck.

Why cross-ref the apocrypha? The apocrypha represent the near-Jesus time period, and clues on how (some) jews viewed the OT. Today's lunch was the wicked witch of Endor!! Sirach was impressed that Samual prophesied after death (didn't care about the necromancer).

Now. Whatever happened to New Jersusalem notes?? Edit: Oops, I forgot ... they're useless in Logos. Refunded.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Steve Maling

How about because the Apocrypha are in the RC Canon?

Ken McGuire

Because for the translating body it isn't the apocrypha. It is the Old Testament.

Steve Maling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1120557#Comment_1120557

Ken expressed it correctly[:)]

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1120557#Comment_1120557

Because for the translating body it isn't the apocrypha. It is the Old Testament.

Technically, the Deuterocanonicals are part of the Old Testament, both for Catholics and for most other churches that pre-existed the Protestant Reformation.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1120594#Comment_1120594

Not to mention that apocrypha is canonical in the sense of being part of scripture but noncanonical in the sense of a basis for dogma in several Protestant churches.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1120594#Comment_1120594

Well, the fourth session of Trent does say they are "received and venerated with equal affection" with no distinction between the Protocanon and the Deuterocanon. And your bibles are still organized with them not as any separate unit of the Old Testament - some with historical books, some with poetical books, etc... Of course, they can be distinguished in terms of history, but as far as theological authority?

Of course, I come at this as a Lutheran and not someone who lives within Roman Catholicism, so I do apologize if I am reading your standards incorrectly. In my church body the fight is to just try to reclaim them since ignoring them is ahistorical, even if we have usually considered them to be secondary.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1120607#Comment_1120607

Ken, you correctly understand the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox positions. For theological authority I was thinking of the Anglican and Lutheran use of the "Apocrypha"