The Apocrypha: Which books have been published in a Bible?

[johnboy3434]

This will be an ecumenical matter.

Some non-Protestant Bibles include "the Apocrypha". We all know this. However, an examination of these Bibles shows that "the Apocrypha" isn't a consistently-defined body of work the way, for example, "the New Testament" is. Some English versions of the Bible exclude certain books entirely while still claiming to include the Apocrypha with no limiting qualifiers.

I've done some research of my own, looking through Amazon previews of various versions and perusing through local Christian bookstores. Thus far, I've found that the "most comprehensive" Apocrypha in one place can be found in the ESV, RSV, NRSV, and CEV. It includes the following works:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
--Chapters 11-16
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel
--Prayer of Azariah
--Susanna
--Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1 Esdras
Additions to Psalms
--The Prayer of Manasseh
--Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
2 Esdras
4 Maccabees

At first, I thought that was it. I had never seen an apocryphal work in an English Bible that wasn't in that list... until I came across the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), an English translation of the Greek version of the Jewish Bible. In addition to all the above books (save 2 Esdras, which is not extant in Greek), it includes one book that is not present in the aforementioned versions:

Psalms of Solomon

That discovery was what prompted this thread: I wondered if there were other books that only appeared in one or a few obscure translations that I had overlooked. I'm here to ask for help from people familiar with the contents of English Bibles that include the Apocrypha: What are all the books that appear in at least one scholarly English translation of the Bible? Let me clarify what I mean:

1.) The volume must contain a complete translation of either the universal 66 books or at least the entire Jewish canon (which is the same as the Protestant Old Testament). This disqualifies books that serve the sole purpose of collecting apocryphal/pseudepigraphal works, like M.R. James' New Testament Apocrypha.

2.) For the sake of this discussion, anything not in the 66 traditional books is considered "apocryphal", although the term "deuterocanonical" may be more appropriate for some works.

3.) The "scholarly" qualifier is to make sure the book isn't exclusive to a cult or some other non-Trinitarian sect. That disqualifies the works of Joseph Smith, for example.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think it's safe to say that all non-Protestant Bibles include "the Apocrypha" (I prefer the term Deutero-canonicals); it's just that some Protestant Bibles continue to retain them while, since the end of the 19th century, most in English have discarded them (though you can still find them).

The most extensive list of the Septuagint would likely be this. This is, more or less, the Septuagint, and it's what the Eastern Orthodox have continued to receive as their Old Testament since virtually forever.

The Latin Old Testament (that is, of the Vulgate) can be assessed here, a digitized transcription of the Gutenberg Bible, representative of the pre-Clementine Vulgate; thus prior to the reforms of Trent which fixed the Roman Catholic Canon to what we have now.

The Luther Bible and Protestant Bibles following retain in their appended "Apocrypha" much of the same as the pre-Trent/pre-Clementine Vulgate.

Though for the most extensive Canonical list in existence, the Ethiopian Narrow and Broad Canons would be it. Though really, the Ethiopian Church and the Bible it uses looks little different than its sister Oriental Orthodox (Coptic and Syrian) Churches, the Narrow and Broad Canonical lists are by far the widest extents of anything that could possibly be classified as "biblical". Though, as noted, in practice their Canon looks like a standard Eastern Canon and is going to look a lot like the Eastern Orthodox biblical Canon, and outside of the Ethiopian Church no church body has ever recognized some of the books found in the Narrow and Broad Canons (such as Enoch and Jubilees), as even some of the material listed are uniquely, if not natively, Ethiopian (existing no where else and written in Ethiopia).

And it's worth noting that even within the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Ethiopian Church is fairly unique.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[johnboy3434]

I thank you so much for being so thorough in your answer... but unfortunately, it seems that I did not make myself clear in what I was asking for. I was speaking specifically about English-language Bibles. It's not that I think English is somehow superior to other languages. It's just that I only speak English, so if I'm going to read it... you get the idea.

I've done further searching through other English-language Bibles, and it would seem that the Psalms of Solomon in NETS is a unique case of a book popping up in just one translation. Every other one I've seen only includes books that can be found in the "most comprehensive" Apocrypha I listed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Orthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson, is an English language Bible meant for Eastern Orthodox study. The New Testament is adapted from the NKJV, the Old Testament is the traditional Orthodox OT (the Septuagint) translated primarily from the Septuagint with some input from the Masoretic Text. The only thing it is missing apparently is the Odes of Solomon, and thus contains all of the Orthodox "Anagignoskomena" (Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[johnboy3434]

Sorry to necropost, but I've found something called the Universal Bible from Fifth Estate Publishing.* In addition to everything from my first post (sans the Psalms of Solomon), it includes 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 1 Clement, Laodiceans, and various other books. However, judging from the website of the publisher, it looks like an amateur affair without any real expertise behind it. Notably, it doesn't even specify if the translation is new or just a compilation of public domain versions.

Can anyone here either vouch for or denounce the scholarship of Fifth Estate Publishing and the bible's editor, Joseph B. Lumpkin?

*I can't post links yet, so search Amazon for "THE UNIVERSAL BIBLE OF THE PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, ORTHODOX, ETHIOPIC, SYRIAC, AND SAMARITAN CHURCH" and you'll find it.

 

[johnboy3434]

For the benefit of anyone who cares, I looked up more information about Joseph B. Lumpkin, the editor of the "Universal Bible" I mentioned in the last post.

Battlefield Baptist Institute, from which Mr. Lumpkin acquired his "doctorate", is not accredited by any recognized accreditation body in the United States. Combine that harsh reality with anecdotal reports that Mr. Lumpkin's theology would be considered peculiar by mainstream Christian standards, and I could not in good faith recommend his work to anyone wanting a comprehensive Bible.

 

[James Is Back]

The 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha at one point for 50 years before it was removed from what I read.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha at one point for 50 years before it was removed from what I read.

Much longer than fifty years actually. The King James Version continued to be printed with the Apocrypha up until the 1880's. One can find KJVs from the mid 1800s with the Apocrypha, and it really isn't until around the 1880's that Bible publishers more-or-less began to print KJV Bibles without the Apocrypha in earnest.

For the sake of pictures, here's an example:

http://www.windmillministries.org/Antique-Family-Bible-Store-C85.htm

-CryptoLutheran

 

[James Is Back]

Much longer than fifty years actually. The King James Version continued to be printed with the Apocrypha up until the 1880's. One can find KJVs from the mid 1800s with the Apocrypha, and it really isn't until around the 1880's that Bible publishers more-or-less began to print KJV Bibles without the Apocrypha in earnest.

For the sake of pictures, here's an example:

1855 Exquisite and Rare gold decorated Family Bible with gorgeous color engravings and unique color decorated family pages

-CryptoLutheran

Wow didn't know it lasted that long. Thanks for the history lesson