Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!bukys
From: bukys@rochester.UUCP (Liudvikas Bukys)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible Translations
Message-ID: <7720@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 10:19:49 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.7720
Posted: Mon Apr  1 10:19:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 02:05:15 EST
References: <8368@watarts.UUCP> <1015@cbosgd.UUCP> <1084@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 51
Keywords: apocryphal, deuterocanonical

apoc.ry.phal \-f*l\ adj  1 often cap : of or resembling the Apocrypha  2 : not
  canonical : SPURIOUS -- SYN see FICTITIOUS -- apoc.ry.phal.ly \-f*-le\ adv 
  -- apoc.ry.phal.ness n 

deu.tero.ca.non.i.cal \.d(y)ut-*-ro-k*-'nan-i-k*l\ adj [NL deuterocanonicus, 
  fr.  deuter- + LL canonicus canonical] : of, relating to, or constituting 
  the part of the Roman Catholic canon of scripture that contains writings 
  whose authenticity has been questioned 

-------

So, how did the deuterocanonical pieces get into the Roman Catholic
canon?  Mostly because they appeared in some widely-used texts, in
particular, in the Septuagint, often abbreviated as "LXX", a Greek
translation of the Hebrew scriptures produced by a group of 70 scholars
(hence the name) in the third century BC.

Circa 100 AD, a synod of rabbis met at Jamnia, and agreed upon criteria
by why which some texts were to be excluded from the canon, and
provided for a new translation into Greek.

	``Baruch and the Epistles of Jeremiah were not of Palestinian
	origin.  Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) and First Maccabees were
	written after the time of Esdra.  Tobit, along with parts of
	Daniel and Esther, were originally composed in Aramaic and also
	probably outside of Palestine, the book of Judith was probably
	written in Aramaic, and Wisdom and Second Maccabees were
	written in Greek.''
	[The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J., Doubleday]

"The Epistles of Jeremiah" doesn't ring a bell, so maybe that was
dropped from the Catholic canon too.  The Catholic list dates to 382
AD, from a declaration by Pope Damascus I, which follows the
Septuagint.  The Protestant Reformers challenged this, preferring to
follow the Council of Jamnia.

-------

The connotation of the word "apocryphal" when referring to the
deuterocanonical books bothers me somewhat, in that it suggests that
there is no good reason at all for their inclusion in anyone's canon.
On the contrary, they are there for at least defensible historical
reasons.  Even from a Protestant or Jewish point of view, the
deuterocanonical books are less apocryphal than other "Apocrypha".

Liudvikas Bukys
rochester!bukys (uucp) via allegra, decvax, seismo
bukys@rochester (arpa)

P.S.  I seem to remember that some pretty old Hebrew texts of some of
this stuff may have been discovered.