# ESV with the Apocrypha



## JM (Mar 10, 2009)

The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha - - Christianbook.com


----------



## Skyler (Mar 10, 2009)

What are the reasons for reading the Apocrypha? I'm sure there are many, I'm just not familiar with them.


----------



## PresbyDane (Mar 10, 2009)

Luther said they were useful


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2009)

Skyler said:


> What are the reasons for reading the Apocrypha? I'm sure there are many, I'm just not familiar with them.



I respect the history of the Maccabean Revolt in the Apocrypha. Those were some _real _men back then! It would make a great Mel Gibson film!


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 10, 2009)

Maybe they could get Sean Connery to play the part of Mattathias. I've always liked that priest's moxie!


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Maybe they could get Sean Connery to play the part of Mattathias. I've always liked that priest's moxie!



And Liam Neeson to be Judas Maccabee?


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 10, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe they could get Sean Connery to play the part of Mattathias. I've always liked that priest's moxie!
> ...



I like it! Who can we lobby for production?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...



Stephen Spielberg, or course!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2009)

Send an e-mail to Icon Productions...


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 10, 2009)

On a more serious note: This history would seem to be the sort of thing that Gibson / Icon productions would tackle. And, being the type of Catholic that he is, he would be familiar with the Apocrypha. Perhaps I will email them. . .


----------



## Richard King (Mar 10, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > What are the reasons for reading the Apocrypha? I'm sure there are many, I'm just not familiar with them.
> ...




Now that is true. 
Not loving the apocrypha but Maccabean's do know how to get their fight on.

Maybe this could be the first film of No Longer a Libertine Films


----------



## yeutter (Mar 10, 2009)

Read Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 50:22-24
"22. And now we bless the God of all,
who in every way does great things;
who exalts our days from birth,
and deals with us according to His mercy.
23. May He give us gladness of heart,
and grant that peace may be in 
our days in Isreal, 
as in the days of old.
24. May He entrust us to His mercy!
and let Him deliver us in our days!"

Many scholars think this was the source for the hymn, _Nun danket alle Gott_


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2009)

Skyler said:


> What are the reasons for reading the Apocrypha? I'm sure there are many, I'm just not familiar with them.


Just like one would read other books outside the Scriptures. Though not held to the same level as Scripture, there are some things to be learned, those that do not contradict Scripture, from the Apocrypha. Even one or more of the Confessions state this, I believe.


----------



## forgivenmuch (Mar 10, 2009)

Skyler said:


> What are the reasons for reading the Apocrypha? I'm sure there are many, I'm just not familiar with them.



It gives a good, detailed history of Palestine and the nation of Israel during the Intertestamental Period.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Mar 10, 2009)

I don't like the idea of adding the apocrypha to a bible. While reading them may be useful, by adding them to a bible is one making the statement that they have authority or are in some form inspired? If the answer is "no," then is there any risk that others may not understand this distinction? Yes, I know that study bibles add all sorts of information, and that just because it's within the covers of a bible doesn't make it "gospel," but for some reason this doesn't feel right.


----------



## forgivenmuch (Mar 10, 2009)

ericfromcowtown said:


> I don't like the idea of adding the apocrypha to a bible. While reading them may be useful, by adding them to a bible is one making the statement that they have authority or are in some form inspired? If the answer is "no," then is there any risk that others may not understand this distinction? Yes, I know that study bibles add all sorts of information, and that just because it's within the covers of a bible doesn't make it "gospel," but for some reason this doesn't feel right.



I agree. If it's not canonical, it shouldn't be there.


----------



## Quickened (Mar 10, 2009)

I have heard the Apocrypha contained contradictions. What were those or what would be a good source to read about those.

I think along the same lines as Eric. Adding them to the bible does seem to make that statement and while there are some discearning readers that will be able to understand that it is no part of cannon there are many i am sure that will not interpret it as such

The westminster states



Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture said:


> III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]



If it is no part of canon of scripture then why group it as such? They;d be better off inserting the confessions at the back of the bible.

If folks want to read them then they should be sold and grouped in their own book with an introduction that starts with the part i quoted above from the confession


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 10, 2009)

This is speculation, but I think that the publishers added the Apocrypha to widen its marketing potential. Maybe some RCs are tired of Douay or NRSVA.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 10, 2009)

forgivenmuch said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the idea of adding the apocrypha to a bible. While reading them may be useful, by adding them to a bible is one making the statement that they have authority or are in some form inspired? If the answer is "no," then is there any risk that others may not understand this distinction? Yes, I know that study bibles add all sorts of information, and that just because it's within the covers of a bible doesn't make it "gospel," but for some reason this doesn't feel right.
> ...



No study notes then? Or is it the content that bothers people?

Incidentally, I'm a big fan of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), all 4 books of Maccabees (especially the part about the seven brothers who die for their faith before Antiochus), Tobit (Jewish folk tale whose hero Tobias is my middle name), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

They are infinitely inferior to Scripture, but better than many other human works. I'd jump at an ESV Apocrypha sold separately. Thankfully they're not integrated w/ the OT in this edition.

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 07:38:57 EST-----



Rich Koster said:


> This is speculation, but I think that the publishers added the Apocrypha to widen its marketing potential. Maybe some RCs are tired of Douay or NRSVA.



Catholics right now pretty much go for the New American (don't call me Standard) Bible, or the more conservative ones do the Douay or the Ignatius edition of the RSV. I'd be surprised to see a "Catholic ESV", but some may go for this edition.

I think a big reason for releasing this is for Anglicans, who read from several books in their lectionary.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 10, 2009)

I'm sure they like Anglican money too


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2009)

There was never so much certainty that the 66 Books we now have as cannon should be considered such as right now. Luther wasn't the only Reformer who wondered about books such as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. I personally take it as an example of how the Kingdom is growing in both size and knowledge.

Reading through the Apocrypha isn't tedious. It's enjoyable, and every Christian should read through them once, keeping in mind that those who have labored before us say that they are useful, but not necessarily God breathed.


----------



## Contra Marcion (Mar 10, 2009)

Quickened said:


> I have heard the Apocrypha contained contradictions. What were those or what would be a good source to read about those.



1) Post-mortem salvation seems to be taught in 2 Macc. 12:43-45

2) Judith 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria (vice Babylon) in Nineveh (vice Babylon). 

3) Tobit 1:!5 has Sennacherib ascending to the throne of Assyria upon the death of Shalmaneser V, when in fact it was Sargon II who succeeded Shalmaneser V. 

4) Both Sirach 3:30 and Tobit 12:8-9 both seem to teach that one can be saved by good works

5) Wisdom 8:19-21 seems to a) teach the pre-existence of the soul, and b) deny original sin. 


BTW, while NOT part of the canon, and never quoted a scripture in the NT, the apocrypha is used extensively in the the NT. Compare:

Luke 18:1-8/Sirach 35:14-22

Matthew 22:23-33/Tobit 3:7-17

Hebrews 11:35-38/2 Macc. 7:10-20

Matthew 27:43/Wisdom 2:13

and more....


----------



## Edward (Mar 10, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Though not held to the same level as Scripture, there are some things to be learned, those that do not contradict Scripture, from the Apocrypha. Even one or more of the Confessions state this, I believe.
> ...


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 10, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> I'm sure they like Anglican money too



 Why would you single out Anglicans?

And if I remember correctly the earliest Coverdale Bible and Geneva Bible were published with the Apocrypha in them.


----------



## New Englander (Mar 10, 2009)

I ordered this so that I could have a copy of the apocrypha for reference reading (that is not the NRSV). 

The translation itself is fairly similar to the old RSV with a few minor tweaks It is worth noting that it includes 3-4 Mac., 2 Esdras, and Greek Esther. The binding is excellent and the font is a quite readable sans serif. My only gripe is that the page thickness is a little thin, but this is a common problem with most bibles.

The OUP edition places these after the bible in a section clearly marked as apocrypha and succeeded by only the table of weights and measures and the maps.

I am grateful to have new translation of these books - simply because they lack inspiration does not mean we should renounce them for the histories* that they are. They are equal to any uninspired word (footnotes, headings, commentary, study notes), but that does not mean that they are not useful.


* and historical documents


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 10, 2009)

Contra Marcion said:


> 2) Judith 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria (vice Babylon) in Nineveh (vice Babylon).



Indeed! He was also king of Assyria _after_ the Jews returned from Exile! Kinda like saying Adolf Hitler was leader of the USSR after 9/11.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 10, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> On a more serious note: This history would seem to be the sort of thing that Gibson / Icon productions would tackle. And, being the type of Catholic that he is, he would be familiar with the Apocrypha. Perhaps I will email them. . .



Go for it! Tell me what Gibson says!


----------



## brymaes (Mar 10, 2009)

> And if I remember correctly the earliest Coverdale Bible and Geneva Bible were published with the Apocrypha in them.


As was the AV.


----------



## tellville (Mar 11, 2009)

Does anyone know if there is even a movie about the Maccabean revolt?


----------



## forgivenmuch (Mar 11, 2009)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> forgivenmuch said:
> 
> 
> > ericfromcowtown said:
> ...



I wasn't referring to notes in the text, but to full books included in the Scriptures, that have proponents who hold to their canonicity. 
BTW, how did Oxford University Press get rights to release an ESV? I thought that Crossway had exclusive rights to the translation.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 11, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure they like Anglican money too
> ...



In response to the post above my last one....

-----Added 3/11/2009 at 08:01:50 EST-----

Anglicans were not being singled out....just added to the list of potential buyers.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 14, 2009)

New Englander said:


> The OUP edition places these after the bible in a section clearly marked as apocrypha and succeeded by only the table of weights and measures and the maps.



An excellent decision. No question as to whether they should belong in the Bible, putting them as an appendix rather than in the middle.

Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing the Didache and I Clement appendixed as helpful resources either, but that's just me.


----------

