|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Apocrypha - what's the deal?
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
I was in Norwich cathedral last weekend at evensong and listening to the reading I was thinking "gosh I don't remember this bit" (I'm fairly familiar with the Bible so I usually recognise the readings at least to some extent). Thinking about it later I came up with the idea that the reading had been from the Apocrypha. I may or may not be right and I can't find a way on the web to check. So, questions to the accumulated wisdom of Kerygmania:
1) Would an anglican cathedral include readings from the Apocrypha?
2) What is the status of the Apocrypha? I don't have a single Bible that includes them (I have a fair few translations) and when I went to the Church House bookshop yesterday looking for one that included them they all appeared to be catholic. [There was even one described in the title as the XL Catholic Bible which I kept reading as the "Extra Catholic" Bible - mind boggles.]
3) As a moderately observant incompetent Anglican should I read the apocrypha in the same way I read the Bible? [Interesting note - I'm happy to put a lower case a on apocrypha but couldn't bring myself to a lower case b on Bible.]
This is a bit of a ramble and the subject has probably been covered already on this board. Please enlighten me! This is the only place one can get a truly balanced christian view on the web...!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
First of all, they're not "apocrypha".
Actually, quite a lot of Christians do refer to those books as "The Apocrypha," so it may not be helpful to immediately correct someone's use of widely-accepted terminology when they are making a sincere request for more information. It's quite OK to say something like "We [whoever we may be] prefer to call them the Deuterocanonicals..." or something like that, but saying "they're not apocrypha" comes across a bit like saying, "I'm not going to consider your question because you used the wrong term."
Just a quick hostly thought to guide further discussion on this interesting topic ...
Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I can't check immediately as I am on a tablet with limited internet access, but the Church of England does include readings from the books included in the Apocrypha in its lectionary, particularly in the eveming and morning offices. That reading is usually optional with a reading from the 66 books offered as an alternative. (The people I am usuually with to read the offices opt for the reading from the Apocrypha, but we have had others object.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Catholic bibles include the "Apocrypha" (or as they call them, the "Deuterocanonicals") which only occur in the "Greek" bible in the reading order of the Vulgate / Septuagint, whereas Protestant bibles that include them tend to separate them out and place them at the end, or between OT and NT, or sometimes even into a separate volume.
For Catholics (and Orthodox) these are part of the canon, for Protestants they were originally roughly like the writings of the Church fathers, i.e., not canonical but highly valued spiritual reading material. To skip them was originally more a matter of the Protestant bible publishers' decision (less pages to print), and from that it unfortunately has developed into a mark of distinction from Catholics in some Protestant circles to intentionally ignore the Apocrypha.
Most of my bibles include the Apocrypha (I'm Catholic), and a fair few of them are Protestant or "ecumenical". You can get non-Catholic bibles with Apocrypha in the KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NEB, REB, CEB, Third Millennium, Good News, and The Message. There may be more but those are the ones I know (in English).
If you don't have a REB (Revised English Bible) translation yet, I would recommend getting a REB with Apocrypha. It's a nice translation (focusing on literary quality) and you can get used copies cheaply on eBay and the like. (The current new REB copies have no combined editions, but a separated out Apocrypha volume - perhaps you like that.)
A brief google concerning the Anglican use in the Lectionary suggests that readings from the Apocrypha are optional, i.e., there is always also a non-Apocryphal reading provided. So basically it will be up to the Church what they read.
[ 07. August 2015, 12:01: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
When Archbishop Cranmer drew up the lectionary for morning and evening prayer, he included readings from the apocryphal books with no alternative.
The 39 Articles say of them
"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine".
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Catholic bibles include the "Apocrypha" (or as they call them, the "Deuterocanonicals") which only occur in the "Greek" bible in the reading order of the Vulgate / Septuagint, whereas Protestant bibles that include them tend to separate them out and place them at the end, or between OT and NT, or sometimes even into a separate volume.
AIUI, the Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments of the Apocrypha in Hebrew, which means they were written not only in Greek.
One reason some Protestants did not want to include them is that in Maccabees 1 or 2, there is a passage in which the Jews make atonement for the sins of certain dead warriors. (I have seen this passage, but I can't locate it at the moment.) This passage had been cited as a justification for the doctrine of Purgatory, and some Protestants were eager to get rid of it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
As venbede says, the official Anglican answer is that they are useful, but not to be used for establishing doctrine.
They're more normally called 'deutrocanonical' amongst Anglicans that do use them (which I suspect is the majority)
The CofE lectionary always includes an alternative when there's a reading from a deutrocanonical book, but any church trying to fully follow the lectionary (which I'd expect any cathedral to do) would chose the deutrocanonical reading.
I would say you should read them in a very similar way as you read the rest of the bible. (But you shouldn't read all of the bible in exactly the same way - it contains many different types of writing written at very different times)
There are slight variants on the history of the status of these books depending on who you ask. They were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, but seem to either been considered as lower status or were a passing fad by Jews. At any rate, when the Jews formalized what was in the bible in the 8th century (the masoretic text), these books weren't included, but the Greek-speaking early church (including the authors of the New Testament) considered them a perfectly normal part of the old testament. At the reformation, when people began to do new translations of the bible, they looked at the bibles that contemporary Jews were using and discovered a few books seemed to be 'missing'. Given the feelings of the time, quite a few people decided these books must be some sort of Catholic forgery so many protestants considered it very important that these books are kept out of the bible.
Personally I've never seen any clear evidence that you come up with a particularly different doctrinal position if you were to accept or reject these books (i.e. Anglo-Catholics seem quite happy to hold exactly the same doctrines as Roman Catholics, justifying these doctrines entirely from books in the masoretic text, even if Roman Catholics would quote deutrocanonical scripture to justify the idea. I also haven't heard any convincing arguments from a protestant perspective that any protestant doctrine would be undermined by acceptance of the deutrocanonical books)
Edited to add - Crossposted with Moo who has pointed out the contentious issue about including these books that I'd forgotten about. But many nonbelievers in Purgatory manage to hold the deutrocanonicals in high regard.
[ 07. August 2015, 12:40: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
Ad Orientem - apologies if my ignorance of terminology caused offence. I have tried to do better below.
Curiosity killed... - that must be what happened at Norwich - they just used the "apocrypha"/deuterocanonical [I'm trying to use a neutral terminology that won't annoy anyone] reading set for the day. I thought it was rather good hence my hoping to find it again if I get a Bible with those books in.
venbede - thanks for the rubric from the 39 articles. I'm not sure what it means but I'm sure it's right (I did say I was an incompetent Anglican).
IngoB - thanks very much for all that information. I didn't know there were so many versions that included "apocrypha"/deuterocanonical books - I'd actually quite like a Bible with them in rather than a separate volume so I will have a look on Amazon and see what I can find. Thanks also for the REB recommendation - I don't think I have one of those and I'm always up for something that is literary and well written as well as being accurate.
[Cross posted with Moo and *Leon* - many thanks to them also.]
[ 07. August 2015, 12:45: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
You might also be interested in this book by Dan Harrington which would give you a general overview of the contents of these books, and their usefulness for "example of life and instruction of manners."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
No offence, no worries. I merely felt compelled to point it out, that's all. I'm like that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Helen-Eva The most common translation used in the CofE is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
It includes the deutrocanonicals (in most editions) Since it's such a widely used, reasonably modern and well regarded translation, I'd suggest that anyone who owns a fair few translations might want a copy.
Whether or not it's 'better' than the REB would be a subject for another thread. It is very arguably less 'literary', but it has the major advantage that if you walk into a random cathedral and start wondering about the reading later, it'll probably be the NRSV that they read from.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Reading Gerhard (17th cent. Lutheran theologian), the two major reasons for not accepting these books on the same level as the canon were a) the Jews did not do so, and b) Jesus doesn't make the same use of them he does of the rest of the OT (quotes, allusions, etc.) I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
From the beginning the Lutheran churches have recommended these books as useful pious reading, we simply don't treat them as "thus saith the Lord" in the way we do the OT/NT. And you will find them in some Lutheran Bibles, including the one Luther himself translated.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Helen-Eva, the Oremus Bible Browser has the entire text of the NRSV, including the Apocrypha. If you want to read the passage that you heard, you can find it there.
It's still worthwhile to have a Bible with the Apocrypha.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
Not from Jesus or the Apocrypha, but St Matthew is obviously taking the Greek OT as authoritative rather than the Hebrew in citing "a virgin shall conceive".
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Sirach 28:2 seems to have inspired part of the Lord's Prayer.
quote:
Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Reading Gerhard (17th cent. Lutheran theologian), the two major reasons for not accepting these books on the same level as the canon were a) the Jews did not do so, and b) Jesus doesn't make the same use of them he does of the rest of the OT (quotes, allusions, etc.) I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
From the beginning the Lutheran churches have recommended these books as useful pious reading, we simply don't treat them as "thus saith the Lord" in the way we do the OT/NT. And you will find them in some Lutheran Bibles, including the one Luther himself translated.
This is worth a read:
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Sirach 28:2 seems to have inspired part of the Lord's Prayer.
quote:
Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned
Sirach is the book of Ecclesiasticus, the longest book in the Apocrypha which includes the most famous passages (come let us praise famous men and our fathers who begot us...)
It is called Sirach in the C of E lectionary, presumably to avoid confusion with Ecclesiastes in the OT proper (a work of world weary cynicism).
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
Not from Jesus or the Apocrypha, but St Matthew is obviously taking the Greek OT as authoritative rather than the Hebrew in citing "a virgin shall conceive".
Also of interest is the reference in Jude's letter regarding the contention between Satan and the angel Michael over the body of Moses. (Jude v9)This Is a reference to the book of Enoch.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, your source is clearly wrong on certain areas I have knowledge of (Luther, for instance) and I'm afraid therefore I can't trust it for the rest. Sorry.
Re the Septuagint--
I'm aware that it was a major source for the NT, and I have no problems with that at all. But the mere fact that the apocryphal books appear in the Septuagint (without being directly quoted from in the NT) doesn't mean a whole lot. We're talking about ancient literature and ancient concepts of "publishing" (if I can call it that when it's all manuscript). Basically, you could have several works on a single scroll side by side without necessarily implying that they were all of equal value, from the same source, or what have you.
We rarely do that with modern books--when we publish things together in a volume, we tend to take things that are of the same value or authority or source. But we DO do that with bookshelves--that is, we often put books of high value next to books of little value or middling value, and nobody thinks it strange.
An ancient person commissioning a scroll or three could have very much the same attitude as the modern person stocking a bookshelf. Simply appearing together does not mean equal authority. It means that this arrangement was most convenient for the scroll owner--possibly because the appended books were of an appropriate length to fill out a scroll, or because they were in the same originating library from which the copy was taken. But we can't read much more into it than that.
TL;DR version: Just because the apocryphal books appear in the LXX doesn't tell us they're canonical. They did things differently in the olden days.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, Jesus may well have had Ecclesiasticus 6:18-31 in mind when he said "come to me all who are weary..." It seems to be a short summary of the passage, in similar language to the wisdom books (obvs Proverbs too).
Which is interesting, because Jesus is associating himself with the female personification of Wisdom, Sophia. Not sure if anyone else would have done that. It's one thing to say "Wisdom: she's great!", it's another to say "Wisdom: I am she!".
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ad Orientem, your source is clearly wrong on certain areas I have knowledge of (Luther, for instance) and I'm afraid therefore I can't trust it for the rest. Sorry.
What it says about Luther is true. It's why, for instance, he wanted to ditch St. James's epistle.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re the Septuagint--
I'm aware that it was a major source for the NT, and I have no problems with that at all. But the mere fact that the apocryphal books appear in the Septuagint (without being directly quoted from in the NT) doesn't mean a whole lot. We're talking about ancient literature and ancient concepts of "publishing" (if I can call it that when it's all manuscript). Basically, you could have several works on a single scroll side by side without necessarily implying that they were all of equal value, from the same source, or what have you.
We rarely do that with modern books--when we publish things together in a volume, we tend to take things that are of the same value or authority or source. But we DO do that with bookshelves--that is, we often put books of high value next to books of little value or middling value, and nobody thinks it strange.
An ancient person commissioning a scroll or three could have very much the same attitude as the modern person stocking a bookshelf. Simply appearing together does not mean equal authority. It means that this arrangement was most convenient for the scroll owner--possibly because the appended books were of an appropriate length to fill out a scroll, or because they were in the same originating library from which the copy was taken. But we can't read much more into it than that.
TL;DR version: Just because the apocryphal books appear in the LXX doesn't tell us they're canonical. They did things differently in the olden days.
I often hear stuff like this: the ancients thought this, the ancients thought that; but without much proof. What we do know is that the Septuagint was the Old Testament of choice for the Church and that by the Fourth Century we see a number of local councils confirming the use of the Deuterocanonical books along with the other books of the Old Testament. This is a million times for important, from a Christian context, than what happened in some fictional council at Jamnia.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
Helen-Eva
Is this what you heard read?
Ecclesiasticus 42.15-end
That's the NRSV. It's possible you heard the King James Version.
Peter Owen - thank you! That was exactly the kind of thing - I'm afraid I don't remember the exact words well enough to be sure but if you've found it set for the time in question (31 July) then it must have been. I have now got my copy of the NRSV with the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in and I shall read Ecclesiasticus first. That's "Sirach" right?
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
That's "Sirach" right?
It is indeed. Wisdom includes some worthwhile bit, too.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.
It also lists what the various churches call the different books, with is also quite varied.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.
It also lists what the various churches call the different books, with is also quite varied.
When I was about 17-18 and coming to faith and buying my first Bible I went into the christian bookshop (Canterbury as it happens) and asked which Bible was appropriate for Anglicans and how did they differ for different denominations and the woman behind the counter assured me there were no different Bibles and they all had the same content and were equally applicable to all denominations! The more I find out the less true this appears to be. (Incidentally I ended up asking my friend who was doing A Level Religious Studies what Bible to get so she said a NIV so I got that. In a version with pretty photos of biblical sites in.)
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva
Incidentally I ended up asking my friend who was doing A Level Religious Studies what Bible to get so she said a NIV so I got that. In a version with pretty photos of biblical sites in.
There are serious problems with the NIV translation. There is a thread in Limbo discussing them.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The NIV doesn't have the Apocrypha on principle
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
Moo, venbede -
thanks for the link to the thread - I don't know anything much about the NIV translation from a quality perspective so I will read the thread with considerable interest. The NIV not having the apocrypha also probably explains why I don't know much about those books. Possibly the fact that my friend who was doing A Level RS was also the daughter of a Baptist minister may have influenced her recommendation?
[edited to correct rotten English]
[ 11. August 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Possibly the fact that my friend who was doing A Level RS was also the daughter of a Baptist minister may have influenced her recommendation?
Very likely!
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I wouldn't assume it was done on any anti-apocrypha principle - in my experience, the NIV is the default version for most 'low church' Protestants, with some using the ESV and Good News Bible, and the New Century Version is often used for youth Bibles. In my experience, many in such churches are unaware of the deuterocanonical books existing, or at least that they exist in non-specifically RC Bibles. I must admit that I didn't know until reading this thread that they existed in such a wide range of translations!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It irritates me the way the 'standard' Bible is likely to come without the deuterocanonical books. I'm from the proddier end of the CofE but IMHO its a misplaced form of proddyism to print Bibles incomplete.
Whatever a person might think of their doctrinal status, the deuterocanonical books are a lot more edifying than a most of the books one gets exhorted to read or finds in Christian bookshops. They are well worth the difference in price between complete and incomplete versions. They aren't dangerous. They won't lead you into heresy. If I can, I try to get a Bible which does include them, and to avoid ones that don't. I would encourage others to do the same.
The AV, RSV, NRSV, REB, and GNB all can include them, though I think the complete version of the GNB may be out of print. The ESV is also available complete, but electronic versions don't usually include it. I think that's because the extra books were added over here and are omitted from the ESV as published in the USA. As far as I know, the NIV has never bothered to translate these books, which is quite a big point against it. Apart from its being an odd sort of religious snobbery, it also means users of the NIV cannot follow all the lectionary.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
A lot of NIV users are unlikely to follow the lectionary anyway, if they are CoE in the first place which many are not.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Salley Vickers' wonderful novel, Miss Garnett's Angel is inspired by the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha. I grabbed from the bookshelves when I was going into hospital on an emergency admission.
(I agree with Enoch.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.
A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha,
In the bowlderized King's James Version, the original version of which included the Apocrypha.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The AV, RSV, NRSV, REB, and GNB all can include them,
The RSV2 (Catholic Edition) puts them in their proper place, including the stories from the LXX Daniel, which are actually printed with Daniel. Pity the RSV uses the artificial distinction of "thou" for God and "you" for everyone else. Mars an otherwise beautiful translation, the way using "Yahweh" mars the Jerusalem.
The only bad thing in the deuts, IMO, is Sirach. What an interminable load of unreadable twaddle. Tobit is delightful.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.
A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.
A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
I started with a paraphrase. The Good News New Testament. That's what I read when I first came to faith. One could probably rightly criticise it and I wouldn't use it now but I still keep it for sentimental value. Silly me.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.
A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
I started with a paraphrase. The Good News New Testament. That's what I read when I first came to faith. One could probably rightly criticise it and I wouldn't use it now but I still keep it for sentimental value. Silly me.
AO - you appear to be saying much the same thing as Pomona,
If anyone cares, the Catholic Message is here.
I have to say I ask the same question as to the Con-Evo appreciation for it. At least amongst some British groups, there does seem to be some attraction to all things American though, which might be it?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've got the Bible Gateway app and I'm finding it very useful. Unfortunately, the only version with the Apocrypha/dc books is the old RC Rheims Douai.
Even versions with the dc books (King James, The Message, etc) doesn't include them.
Rather than spend time pontificating of SoF, I'd spend my time better reading the Apocrypha. (And indeed the rest of the Bible.)
Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My daughter liked the Good News Bible much better than the (NIV) children's Bible she was given. She could read it independently from quite a young age. We had the edition with the line drawings. The children's Bible had horrific illustrations, for example, a carefully executed painting of the rest of the world drowning next to the Ark as the flood waters rose.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've got the Bible Gateway app and I'm finding it very useful. Unfortunately, the only version with the Apocrypha/dc books is the old RC Rheims Douai.
Even versions with the dc books (King James, The Message, etc) doesn't include them.
Rather than spend time pontificating of SoF, I'd spend my time better reading the Apocrypha. (And indeed the rest of the Bible.)
Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.
As for my Finnish version it is an ecumenical version (Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic) but without the Deuterocanonicals (I have a separate book for them from an older Finnish translation). Unfortunately there are not many Finnish versions. I would like one with the Old Testament translated from the Septuagint but I'm probably more likely to see flying pigs first unfortunately.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My daughter liked the Good News Bible much better than the (NIV) children's Bible she was given. She could read it independently from quite a young age. We had the edition with the line drawings. The children's Bible had horrific illustrations, for example, a carefully executed painting of the rest of the world drowning next to the Ark as the flood waters rose.
Ck - your link doesn't work for me.
BTW, as a child I think I would have liked the painting of the rest of the world drowning -- I was sort of a weird kid. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The web version of Bible Gateway does include more versions with deuterocanonical books - apparently there are licensing issues with them which means they're not on the app.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.
Faux Elizabethan? God, I wish the Orthodox would grow out of that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.
Faux Elizabethan? God, I wish the Orthodox would grow out of that.
Call me a sentamentalist. I am!
[ 13. August 2015, 23:56: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Meh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
