Changes

The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the Bible that various religious denominations do not accept as part of the [[Biblical Canon]] - precisely which books varies between denominations. The [[Samaritans]], for example, accept only the ''Samaritan Pentateuch'', the five books of [[Moses]], as canonical and inspired: Genesis through Deuteronomy. All other writings are rejected by them as the uninspired works of men.

The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the Bible that various religious denominations do not accept as part of the [[Biblical Canon]] - precisely which books varies between denominations.  

The Protestant canon of 66 books was originally formulated by [[Martin Luther]], who removed several books and texts from the 73 books of the Old Testament as read by the Catholic Church and separated them as "apocryphal": some editions of the Protestant Bible feature them in a section between the Old and New Testaments as '''The Apocrypha''' (Greek, plural, "apocrypha", singular "apocryphon"). He cited the rabbinical authority of the Jews who have rejected these books as having no place in the Hebrew canon.

The [[Samaritans]], for example, accept only the ''Samaritan Pentateuch'', the five books of [[Moses]], as canonical and inspired: Genesis through Deuteronomy. All other writings are rejected by them as the uninspired works of men.

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power. Historically, Jewish scholars since the 2nd century have considered the canon closed since the time of Malachi, and have not included the books of the Protestant Apocrypha, which were written subsequent to his time.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/the-bible-canon-of.html BibleStudyTools.com. Bible, Canon of]</ref>

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power. Historically, Jewish scholars since the 2nd century have considered the canon closed since the time of Malachi, and have not included the books of the Protestant Apocrypha, which were written subsequent to his time.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/the-bible-canon-of.html BibleStudyTools.com. Bible, Canon of]</ref> The [[Masoretic Text]] does not include the Apocrypha.

The oldest extant manuscripts of the entire Christian Bible are written in Greek, the language of the apostles and the early Christian Church, representing the text of the Holy Bible as it was before the time of Jerome's 5th century Vulgate translation of the scriptures into Latin. They are the ''Codex Vaticanus'', the ''Codex Sinaiticus'', and the ''Codex Alexandrinus''. They demonstrate that all of the books and parts of books that have been separated and designated as Apocrypha since the 16th century were included as integral parts of the whole Bible as handed down from the time of the apostles without any distinction or difference, as sacred scripture.<ref>See especially the following three sources:

The oldest extant manuscripts of the entire Christian Bible are written in Greek, the language of the apostles and the early Christian Church, representing the text of the Holy Bible as it was before the time of Jerome's 5th century Vulgate translation of the scriptures into Latin. They are the ''Codex Vaticanus'', the ''Codex Sinaiticus'', and the ''Codex Alexandrinus''. They demonstrate that all of the books and parts of books that have been separated and designated as Apocrypha since the 16th century were included as integral parts of the whole Bible as handed down from the time of the apostles without any distinction or difference, as sacred scripture.

 

See especially the following three sources:

*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus] (orthodoxwiki.org)

*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus] (orthodoxwiki.org)

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1977articles/pdf/article1.pdf THE CODEX SINAITICUS, T. S. PATTIE. 1977 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1977articles/pdf/article1.pdf THE CODEX SINAITICUS, T. S. PATTIE. 1977 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1998articles/pdf/article12.pdf THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS AND THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK TYPES, J. H. BOWMAN. 1998 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

*[http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1998articles/pdf/article12.pdf THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS AND THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK TYPES, J. H. BOWMAN. 1998 pdf] (bl.uk/eblj)

Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).<br/>See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers]<br/>[http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible]<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This presents a problem. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture.

Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).<br/>See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers]<br/>[http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible]<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This presents a problem. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture.

The [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] definitive final canon of 73 books was retained "as read by the Church" by the [[Council of Trent]]. When Constantine first made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the early 300s, he called together leading Christians from the East and West parts of the empire to iron out the principles of Christianity, including cementing the canon. The entire canonical text was identified by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the [[Synod of Rome (382)]].<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible]<br/>[http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall]<br/>[http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com)  See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> Subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393) and the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]], dealt with minor questions of authenticity, affirming the canon of Damasus and the Synod of Rome, and set forth the first-ever listing of all 27 books of the New Testament together, with 46 books of the Old Testament, a canon of 73 books of the Bible, which quickly gained acceptance and remained unchanged for 1200 years. [[Jerome]] (''Prologus Galeatus'' c. 420) listed the books rejected by the Jews as "apocryphal" but himself quoted them as if they were scripture.<ref>Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon (2013)</ref> The canon of Damasus, and the Synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, was reaffirmed at the [[Council of Florence]] of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible]<br/>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]."<br/>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.]<br/>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> The Catholic Bible includes the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 Old Testament books "with all their parts" from the ancient [[Septuagint]] as used by the apostles and the early Christian church and included in [[Jerome]]'s [[Vulgate]] translation as part of the [[Old Testament]], and accepts those books as scripture.

The [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] definitive final canon of 73 books was retained "as read by the Church" by the [[Council of Trent]]. When Constantine first made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire in the early 300s, he called together leading Christians from the East and West parts of the empire to iron out the principles of Christianity, including cementing the canon. The entire canonical text was identified by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the [[Synod of Rome (382)]].<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible]<br/>[http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall]<br/>[http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com)  See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> Subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393) and the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]], dealt with minor questions of authenticity, affirming the canon of Damasus and the Synod of Rome, and set forth the first-ever listing of all 27 books of the New Testament together, with 46 books of the Old Testament, a canon of 73 books of the Bible, which quickly gained acceptance and remained unchanged for 1200 years. [[Jerome]] (''Prologus Galeatus'' c. 420) listed the books rejected by the Jews as "apocryphal" but himself quoted them as if they were scripture.<ref>Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon (2013)</ref> The canon of Damasus, and the Synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, was reaffirmed at the [[Council of Florence]] of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible]<br/>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]."<br/>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.]<br/>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> The Catholic Bible includes the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 Old Testament books "with all their parts" from the ancient [[Septuagint]] as used by the apostles and the early Christian church and included in [[Jerome]]'s [[Vulgate]] translation as part of the [[Old Testament]], and accepts those books as scripture.

:—[http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The Fourth Session. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)]

:—[http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The Fourth Session. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)]

Protestant doctrine constantly affirms that the apocryphal books were ''added'' to the Bible in the 4th century by the Catholic Church because they contain texts which support traditional Catholic and Orthodox teaching and practice, such as the intercession of saints and prayers for the dead, and the performance of good works and almsgiving as a means of deliverance from death and purging of every sin (''see'' [[Apocrypha#External links|'''The Great Heresies''']], External links ''below''). Since the Apocrypha were already in the Septuagint Old Testament from before the time of the apostles, and have been an integral part of the Greek Bible as read in the ancient Church and preserved by Eastern Orthodoxy from the 1st century to this day, it is difficult to see how they had been "added". Eastern Church leaders rejected the proposed Protestant canon of 66 books in the Bible.<ref>[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)</ref>

Protestant doctrine constantly affirms that the apocryphal books were ''added'' to the Bible in the 4th century by the Catholic Church because they contain texts which support traditional Catholic and Orthodox teaching and practice, such as the intercession of saints and prayers for the dead, and the performance of good works and almsgiving as a means of deliverance from death and purging of every sin (''see'' [[Apocrypha#External links|'''The Great Heresies''']], External links ''below''). Since the Apocrypha were already in the Septuagint Old Testament from before the time of the apostles, and have been an integral part of the Greek Bible as read in the ancient Church and preserved by Eastern Orthodoxy from the 1st century to this day, it is difficult to see how they had been "added". Eastern Church leaders rejected the proposed Protestant canon of 66 books in the Bible.<ref>[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)</ref>

Protestant doctrine also points out that none of the Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament, presenting this fact as an additional indication that the New Testament writers did not regard them as inspired scripture. The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books ''except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,'' and the ''Song of Solomon''. This does not mean they are not inspired, and they are accepted by Protestants as canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible.

Protestant doctrine also points out that none of the Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament, presenting this fact as an additional indication that the New Testament writers did not regard them as inspired scripture. The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books ''except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,'' and the ''Song of Solomon''. This does not mean they are not inspired, and they are accepted by Protestants as canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible.

For some time the [[King James Bible]] contained those books which [[Protestant Reformation|Protestant Reformers]] deemed apocryphal in a separate section, "Apocrypha", between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The [[Episcopal Church]] includes the books of the Apocrypha in the cycle of scripture readings in its services, but holds that the apocryphal books are useful for study and [[edification]], but not for doctrine.  Most Protestant churches do not use the Apocrypha as scripture at all, and they are not included in standard published editions of Protestant Bibles.

For some time the [[King James Bible]] contained those books which [[Protestant Reformation|Protestant Reformers]] deemed apocryphal in a separate section, "Apocrypha", between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The [[Episcopal Church]] includes the books of the Apocrypha in the cycle of scripture readings in its services, but holds that the apocryphal books are useful for study and [[edification]], but not for doctrine.  Most Protestant churches do not use the Apocrypha as scripture at all, and they are not included in standard published editions of Protestant Bibles.

Most Protestant Christians are unaware that numerous quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint Old Testament containing the Apocrypha.<ref>See the following four sources:

Most Protestant Christians are unaware that numerous quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint Old Testament containing the Apocrypha.<ref>See the following four sources:

*[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]

*[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]

*[http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html The Septuagint (LXX): History of the Septuagint]

*[http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html The Septuagint (LXX): History of the Septuagint]

*[http://www.cresourcei.org/canonot.html Canons of the Hebrew Bible]

*[http://www.cresourcei.org/canonot.html Canons of the Hebrew Bible]

*[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Official King James Bible online: Apocrypha Books]</ref> Protestant doctrine has traditionally affirmed that the books of the Apocrypha were not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, presenting this as an additional indication that they cannot be regarded as sacred inspired scripture. However, Biblical researchers in the 20th and 21st centuries have also discovered that most of the Apocrypha, except the Book of Wisdom (originally written in Greek?), were in fact originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac) prior to the Christian era.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Apocrypha] <br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha] (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)</ref><ref name=HebrewAramaic/> The New Testament quotes from all of the Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, and the New Testament books themselves were originally written in Greek.<ref>''The Gospel According to Matthew'' alone among the scriptures of the New Testament was probably originally written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the earlier tradition cited by Eusebius Pamphilus in his ''Ecclesistical History'' (Book III, Chapter XXIV). —''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', C. F. Cruse, 1874, London: George Bell and Sons, York Steet, Covent Garden. pages 97—98. </ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

*[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Official King James Bible online: Apocrypha Books]</ref> Protestant doctrine has traditionally affirmed that the books of the Apocrypha were not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, presenting this as an additional indication that they cannot be regarded as sacred inspired scripture.  

 

However, Biblical researchers in the 20th and 21st centuries have also discovered that most of the Apocrypha, except the Book of Wisdom (originally written in Greek?), were in fact originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac) prior to the Christian era.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Apocrypha] <br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha] (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)</ref><ref name=HebrewAramaic/> The New Testament quotes from all of the Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, and the New Testament books themselves were originally written in Greek.<ref>''The Gospel According to Matthew'' alone among the scriptures of the New Testament was probably originally written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the earlier tradition cited by Eusebius Pamphilus in his ''Ecclesistical History'' (Book III, Chapter XXIV). —''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', C. F. Cruse, 1874, London: George Bell and Sons, York Steet, Covent Garden. pages 97—98. </ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

Books apocryphal to the Protestant canon include (''titles as listed in Bibles printed in 1881''):

Books apocryphal to the Protestant canon include (''titles as listed in Bibles printed in 1881''):

*[[1 Esdras|I Esdras]]

*[[1 Esdras|I Esdras]]

*[[2 Maccabees|Second Book of the Maccabees]]  

*[[2 Maccabees|Second Book of the Maccabees]]  

Martin Luther pronounced as "apocryphal" these books of the New Testament: <ref>[http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/cathbible.html The Reasons Why the Catholic Bible is not Accepted by Modern Churches]<br/>[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/wilkgren.html Luther and "New Testament Apocrypha"]<br/>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM Defending the Deuterocanonicals]</ref>

Martin Luther pronounced as "apocryphal" these books of the New Testament: <ref>[http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/cathbible.html The Reasons Why the Catholic Bible is not Accepted by Modern Churches]<br/>[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/wilkgren.html Luther and "New Testament Apocrypha"]<br/>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM Defending the Deuterocanonicals]</ref>

*[[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]]

*[[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]]

He removed these 4 from the New Testament and placed them in an appendix to the New Testament of his German Bible as not equal to the inspired scriptures, classing them separately as apocryphal along with the 7 books he had removed from the Old Testament and segregated as ''The Apocrypha''. Later, he revised his opinion of them and included them among the New Testament books as "useful", but continued to exclude from the Old Testament the 7 remaining books and parts of other books he had originally removed as "apocryphal".

He removed these 4 from the New Testament and placed them in an appendix to the New Testament of his German Bible as not equal to the inspired scriptures, classing them separately as apocryphal along with the 7 books he had removed from the Old Testament and segregated as ''The Apocrypha''. Later, he revised his opinion of them and included them among the New Testament books as "useful", but continued to exclude from the Old Testament the 7 remaining books and parts of other books he had originally removed as "apocryphal".

See '''[[Daniel (Biblical book)#Dispute on Canonicity|Dispute on Canonicity: reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha]]'''

 

See '''[[Daniel (Biblical book)#Dispute on Canonicity|Dispute on Canonicity: reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha (Daniel)]]'''

 

See '''[[Rest of Esther (Bible)#Dispute on Canonicity|Dispute on Canonicity: reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha (Esther)]]'''

Western [[art]] and [[theology]] continued to make reference to Apocryphal subjects long after they were deemed apocryphal. For example:

Western [[art]] and [[theology]] continued to make reference to Apocryphal subjects long after they were deemed apocryphal. For example:

* the story of [[Judith]] and [[Holofernes|Holophernes]] was a popular subject for painters

* the story of [[Judith]] and [[Holofernes|Holophernes]] was a popular subject for painters

* [[Handel]] wrote an opera, [[Judas Maccabeus]] based on the books of [[Maccabee]]s

* [[Handel]] wrote an opera, [[Judas Maccabeus (opera)|Judas Maccabeus]] based on the books of [[Maccabee]]s

* the four cardinal [[virtue]]s are taken from a verse in the book of Wisdom

* the four cardinal [[virtue]]s are taken from a verse in the book of Wisdom

* the [[archangel]] [[Raphael]] is known from the book of Tobit.

* the [[archangel]] [[Raphael (archangel)|Raphael]] is known from the book of Tobit.

;The Anagignoskomena, Apostolic Fathers, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic writings and gospels

==The Anagignoskomena, Apostolic Fathers, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic writings and gospels==

There are also a number of books which are not included in the Catholic Bible, the ''[[Anagignoskomena]],'', which are part of the [[Orthodox Church|Orthodox canon]]: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and the appended 4 Maccabees. The Protestant canon of Apocrypha omits in silence Psalm 151 and 3rd and 4th Maccabees, perhaps because these were not part of the [[Vulgate]]. They were never part of the Apocrypha of the King James Bible.

There are also a number of books which are not included in the Catholic Bible, the ''[[Anagignoskomena]],'', which are part of the [[Orthodox Church|Orthodox canon]]: 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and the appended 4 Maccabees. The Protestant canon of Apocrypha omits in silence Psalm 151 and 3rd and 4th Maccabees, perhaps because these were not part of the [[Vulgate]]. They were never part of the Apocrypha of the King James Bible.

Other apocryphal works are called "[[pseudepigrapha]]". These include, for example, the [[1 Enoch|Book of Enoch]] and the [[Book of Jubilees]] and the [[Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs]] from the Old Testament period.

Other apocryphal works are called "[[pseudepigrapha]]". These include, for example, the [[1 Enoch|Book of Enoch]] and the [[Book of Jubilees]] and the [[Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs]] from the Old Testament period.