The
Apocrypha
- The two prologues to Ecclesiasticus are appended to the end of
that book as chapters 52 and 53. The verse number was arbitrarily
introduced to these prologues to make it easier to reference. The
RSV omits the first prologue which corresponds to chapter 52.
- RSV verse numbering was followed for "The Prayer of Manasses"
to make it easier to reference.
- The Apocrypha was dropped when the 1769 edition of the
Authorized version was produced. Obvious spelling errors in the
Oxford edition were corrected.
- Cross-references and other facilities do not work with this
module.
This has never been accepted as scriptures for the following
reasons:
- The Jews never considered them part of their sacred canon.
- Christ rejected them by citing the scriptures as the "Law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms". The Jews would understand that to be
what we now consider the 39 books of the Old Testament.
- They are never quoted in the Bible.
- They are unreliable and contradict known historical facts and
doctrines in the Bible. e.g. 2 Mac 12:44,45, Wis 13:18 etc. See "A
Dissertation on the Apocryphal Writings" in the book "Prefeaces to
Gill's Work" (GillPref).
- The number of books, the verse numbering and the actual verses
themselves vary greatly depending on who prints the Apocrypha. This
is not definitely something you would want to depend on!
- The following is the introduction from the Oxford edition of
the Apocrypha.
THE APOCRYPHA
These Books form part of the sacred literature of the Alexandria
Jews, and with the exception of the Second Book of Esdras are found
interspersed with the Hebrew Scriptures in the ancient copies of
the Septuagint, or Greek Version of the Old Testament. They are the
product of the era subsequent to the Captivity; having their origin
partly in Babylonia, partly in Palestine and Egypt and perhaps
other countries. Most of them belong to the last three centuries
B.C., when prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased.
Some of them form an historical link between the Old and New
Testament, others have a linguistic value in connection with the
Hellenistic phraseology of the latter. The narratives of the
Apocrypha are partly historical records, and partly allegorical.
The religious poetry is to a large extent a paraphrase upon the
Poetical and Prophetical Books of the Hebrew Canon. In the
paraphrases upon the latter there is often a near approach to New
Testament teaching, especially upon God's care for the heathen
world.
As to their Canonical Authority, Josephus seems to reject it as
a whole, but appears from his use of I Esdras rather than our
Canonical Ezra to have accepted the authenticity of at least that
work. The early Christians differed in opinion respecting them,but
received them as part of the sacred literature of Israel. Several
of the books of the Apocrypha were more generally accepted than the
disputed books of the New Testament Canon. Melito (cir. 170),
referring to the Hebrew Canon, separated them from the
authoritative and Divine records; while Origen (cir. 230),
following the LXX, included in Daniel (and so among the Canonical
Books) the history of Susanna; and speaks ambiguously about the
Books of the Maccabees. Jerome, a century later, called them
"apocryphal"(hidden, secret, and so of uncertain origin and
authority), affirming (when speaking of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus)
"that the Church doth read them for example of life and instruction
of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any
doctrine". In the Western Church they gradually rose in esteem,
until the Council of Trent affirmed the canonicity of the greater
part; but they are treated by the more critical Roman divines as
"deutero-canonical", thus making some distraction between them and
the books of the Hebrew Canon.
