why isn't the book of Judith in my Bible?

- but is in the lectionary? Is it part of the Apocrypha?

Comments

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    slipping on friendly hosting biretta

    ... deuterocanonical books, yes. Further questions around that might need to slide down a snake to kerygmania, but if you want to explore questions around the lectionary and the deuterocanonicals there could be some discourse here .... do you want to explore your OP further along the liturgical benefits or otherwise of deuterocanonical books?

    (sort of hosting cos that's what I am paid millions of virtual bucks to do - )
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Yes. Simple answer is get a bible which includes the Apocrypha. Of modern ones, that means the NRSV and REB which are both available with or without them or the Jerusalem which always includes them. In the UK one could also get an ESV with it, but I think it's out of print at the moment. Of older ones, the AV/KJV and RSV both have versions that include it. The NRSV includes some extra books that the others don't have.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    My understanding was simply that it’s part of the Catholic Bible, but the Protestant Bibles removed them. There may well be more to it. I don’t know all the history. But Catholic Bibles have Judith and the other deuterocanonical books. If it says Catholic at the front of the Bible, it will have them. And the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem have them but don’t say Catholic, just because they don’t have Protestant versions.
  • BasilicaBasilica Shipmate
    The general answer is that the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the Bible (which tend to be those written in Greek rather than Hebrew) are not acknowledged by Protestant traditions, but are by the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

    I'm Anglican, and acknowledgement of the deuterocanonical books is a sort of messy compromise. Some use them; others don't. The lectionary includes them, but there is always an alternative provided from the main part of the canon. You are not obliged to use them, though many (the majority?) do.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    edited October 22
    The 39 Articles (number VI) saith: 'And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: [and goes on to list them]'

    That's why they are included in the lectionary. I don't think the BCP bothered to provide alternatives, unlike modern lectionaries.
  • Basilica wrote: »
    The general answer is that the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the Bible (which tend to be those written in Greek rather than Hebrew) are not acknowledged by Protestant traditions, but are by the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
    FWIW, they're not acknowledged by the Jewish tradition either, partially because of that written-in-Greek-not-Hebrew thing.

    Not noting this to make any points one way or another, but simply for the sake of noting it.

  • FloRossFloRoss Shipmate
    thanks all. I'll have to dig out another Bible, as it sounds interesting (from numerous paintings, anyway).
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Oh she is simply marvellous...every woman should read it!

    Judith is my middle name and I only discovered her in the Public Library at age 17 ...

    I'll have to dig out another Bible
    Are your Bibles in a hole, then, or a carton?
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    As to the "In Greek not Hebrew" thing-- fragments in Hebrew of all (except possibly Maccabees) are now known to exist. A Dead Sea scholar I heard only 3-4 years ago said a Hebrew fragment of the last book thought to be in Greek only had been found in one of the Dead Sea fragments only a year before he was speaking to us. Alas, i do not remember which book was in question. But, for what its worth, there it is. It is perfectly true that in the 16th century when they were fussing about this, no Hebrew versions were known. But time moves on, and we now actually have access to and know more about this.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Yes. Simple answer is get a bible which includes the Apocrypha. Of modern ones, that means the NRSV and REB which are both available with or without them or the Jerusalem which always includes them. In the UK one could also get an ESV with it, but I think it's out of print at the moment. Of older ones, the AV/KJV and RSV both have versions that include it. The NRSV includes some extra books that the others don't have.

    Sorry RSV at least at one stage had Apocrypha included. It may be out of print now but in the 1970s & 80s it was the standard English* Bible for those studying the Bible at University in the UK.

    *English as opposed to Latin or original languages
  • Not in because there's enough of the rest without it?
  • Not in because there's enough of the rest without it?

    As I understand it one of the arguments of the nineteenth-century Scottish Bible Societies was that leaving it out would save on postage to distant lands...
  • Not in because there's enough of the rest without it?

    There's a lot we could toss out if that's our criterion.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited October 23
    It has been observed, ironically but accurately, that those keenest on a 66-book canon, no more, no less, are also the most eager to distribute portions of Scripture.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    It has been observed, ironically but accurately, that those keenest on a 66-book canon, no more, no less, are also the most eager to distribute portions of Scripture.

    How do you mean?
  • The doctrine of the Bible conisting of 66 'equally' inspired books, no more, no less, is frequently rolled out to combat the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in the physical book these days. Absent any notion of the Church or Tradition as having any authority, the authority of Scripture and preserving the integrity of the canon becomes more important.

    Whereas the non-evangelical understanding of Scripture sees the authority of various books, more especially the deuterocanonicals and the various lists of them in different traditions, on a sort of sliding scale, mediated by the Church and Tradition (or so previous discussions here and IRL have led me to understand).

    So there is no doctrinal basis within evangelical Christianity for a "canon within the canon" as there seems to be in, say, Orthodoxy.

    However, in practice, everyone has a "canon within a canon" - bits of Scripture we feel to be more authoritative or refer to more often.

    And nowhere is this more tangibly visible than with evangelicals, who frequently distribute portions of Scripture - notably the New Testament or individual Gospels. In practice, this pretty much relegates the OT, say, to deuterocanonical status. Which is ironic.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Well, yes, given their penchant for Israel today.
    Though mostly that's about bringing about "certain conditions" and being "on the spot" when You Know Who does You Know What
    (Says she whose living depends on them tourist-dollar-wise)
  • That would be pre-millenialist evangelicals: not all of them.
  • I'm not sure there's a doctrinal basis. It just sort of is. The idea of stitching all of these books together in a single cover and calling it "The Bible" is very new as these things go. In an Orthodox Church you have a Gospel Book, which is the only part of what we call the Bible that goes on the altar, and can only be read liturgically by a priest or deacon. Then there is the Epistolary (rest of the NT) which used to only be read by a tonsured reader, although nowadays they let just anybody read it. Then there's the Psalms, then roughly the rest of the OT (which nowadays you just read from a "Bible"). It's not like we have a doctrine of what's more important; rather of what is read by whom and in what circumstances / during what part of the service / with what level of pomp.

    But it works out in practice as roughly the same thing, I think.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    There’s a bit of a move within evangelicalism towards treating the books of the bible individually and literarily again. Here are a couple of examples:

    ESV Reader’s Bible

    Rediscovering scripture in its most ancient form.

    It actually confirms the idea that the scriptures are to be engaged with as literature, not as a “magic book”.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I don't think either of those editions, for all the nice print and expensive bindings, will include Judith.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited October 27
    I used to write extracts of Tobit in wedding cards for friends of a Christian persuasion, including evangelical Anglican friends. Never heard any comments back on them.
  • The book that the Protestant Reformers were really targeting was 2 Maccabees, because that is the only place in the Scriptures where prayer for the dead is mentioned (https://biblia.com/bible/douayrheims/2Mac12.43-45)

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    yeah ... much better to leave the dead burning in sulphur ... mwahahah
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    The book that the Protestant Reformers were really targeting was 2 Maccabees, because that is the only place in the Scriptures where prayer for the dead is mentioned (https://biblia.com/bible/douayrheims/2Mac12.43-45)

    And approved of in the strongest terms.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I don't think either of those editions, for all the nice print and expensive bindings, will include Judith.

    True. And I doubt they’d even publish such books separately. I’d have to use JB or my NRSV for that I guess. Not that I read them very much. They don’t feel like Scripture to me. Not sure why.
Sign In or Register to comment.