Placement of Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by Traveler, Oct 2, 2021.

?

What placement of the Apychrypha do you prefer?

  1. Latin Vulgate (as in the Roman Catholic Bible)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. In their own section (typically between Old and New Testaments)

    6 vote(s)
    60.0%
  3. Either placement is okay

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%
  4. I prefer the Bible without the Apocrypha

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Traveler

    Traveler Member

    Posts:
    35
    Likes Received:
    24
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    RC, moving to Anglican
    What's your belief about the best placement of the Apocrypha in the Bible?

    I've read the Roman Church's reason for the Latin Vulgate order, the reason why they were put between the Old and New Testaments, and why most protestant Bibles don't include the Apocrypha at all. I do believe the Apocrypha should be in the Bible, but am undecided about the Latin Vulgate versus separate placement.

    One thing I appreciate about Bibles with separately placed Apocrypha is they include the books of the Apocrypha that the Roman Church doesn't.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  2. Fr. Brench

    Fr. Brench Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    225
    Likes Received:
    319
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Yeah, I like the Ecclesiastical Books between the Testaments. I get surprisingly grumpy at how the ESV with Apocrypha places them after the New Testament. I'd rather have the Roman integration than the post-NT position.
     
    bwallac2335 likes this.
  3. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    677
    Religion:
    ACNA
    I like the placement between the testaments as then they flow in sequence.
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    557
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I am fine with either arrangement. Including the Deuterocanonicals interspersed with the OT is the more traditional option, as the LXX was the Church’s Bible, centuries before the Hebrew text was standardized into the MT. Also, placing them in a separate section makes it that much easier to ignore them outright. On the other hand, mixing them together gives the impression that the books with only Greek originals are equal in authority to those in Hebrew.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  5. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    831
    Likes Received:
    895
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I would prefer the wisdom literature to be integrated with the OT wisdom literature. Baruch is a lament and could be incorporated into the Jeremiah-Lamentations cycle. The histories fit best between the Testaments. Tobit is difficult to classify; what is it? Judith is a morality tale.

    People like to poke holes in the histories because they have been proven to be inaccurate. In truth, they are more hagiography than what we expect history to be in our day. But this is not unusual for their time. They are really not significantly different from some of the self-serving literature left by the Egyptians and Assyrians of antiquity.
     
    Invictus and Botolph like this.
  6. Ernesto Jardim

    Ernesto Jardim Member

    Posts:
    79
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country:
    South Africa
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    We can’t love what we don’t know.

    That’s why scripture reading is excellent.