It does get interesting. As Tom Izbicki's note would imply, the language can
be fluid depending upon one's perspective and/or audience. He aptly reminds
us that the term 'apocrypha' for most Protestants refers to the books most
Catholic (R, A, et al.) and Orthodox scholars refer to as 'deuterocanonical'
plus a few others. It is, more or less, a defined group. (I'm on the road,
but cf., e.g., the _Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha_ for a typical
listing.) Other non-canonical literature is 'pseudepigrapha.' For those who
accept the deuteros as part of the canon, 'apocrypha' might well be used to
refer to any books other than the canon. If one reads a variety of
commentators, one must look to the context to determine precisely how the
terms are being used. I seem to recall that Charlesworth has an explanation
of this somewhere in his intro, as well as the intro in the OABA. Failing
those, many standard scriptural commentaries offer a fulsome explanation.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Origen quotes
> In a message dated 10-3-1999 2:28:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > The term apocrypha has to be used with caution. It has two different
> > meanings, the books found in the Roman Catholic canon (with others
sharing
> > it) but not in the Protestant canon (like Wisdom) & those books
accepted
> > by neither tradition but circulated as if biblical. At least one, the
> > supposed epistle of Paul to the Laodicaeans, can show up in Bibles. I
> > saw one copy in a Bible in Biblioteca Ambrosiana. A useful tool, if
> > somewhat dated, for identifying such texts is Stegmuller, repertorium
> > Biblicum.
> >
> > Tom Izbicki
> >
> What about the distinction between the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal
books,
> which I thought is fairly common?
>
> pat sloane
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|