ESV with the Apocrypha
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Luther said they were useful
Classical Presbyterian
Puritan Board Junior
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!
Classical Presbyterian
Puritan Board Junior
And Liam Neeson to be Judas Maccabee?
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
I like it! Who can we lobby for production?
Classical Presbyterian
Puritan Board Junior
Stephen Spielberg, or course!
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Send an e-mail to Icon Productions...
Richard King
Puritan Board Senior
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!
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
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
"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
Inactive User
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
Puritan Board Freshman
It gives a good, detailed history of Palestine and the nation of Israel during the Intertestamental Period.
ericfromcowtown
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree. If it's not canonical, it shouldn't be there.
Quickened
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
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:
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Puritan Board Junior
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-----
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm sure they like Anglican money too
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
Last edited:
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritanboard Brimstone
Go for it! Tell me what Gibson says!
forgivenmuch
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
- Status
