Talk:Biblical apocrypha

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Biblical apocrypha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701230910/http://www.commontexts.org:80/rcl/RCL_Introduction_Web.pdf to http://www.commontexts.org/rcl/rcl_introduction_web.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928122338/http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/042.htm to http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/042.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Another WP article, referring to this topic
Below, is what Pseudepigrapha and which has always been my (OR) understanding of apocrypha as well:

In biblical studies, pseudepigrapha'' refers particularly to works which purport to be written by noted authorities in either the Old and New Testaments or by persons involved in Jewish or Christian religious study or history. These works can also be written about biblical matters, often in such a way that they appear to be as authoritative as works which have been included in the many versions of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. (...)

''Many such works were also referred to as Apocrypha, which originally connoted "secret writings", those that were rejected for liturgical public reading. An example of a text that is both apocryphal and pseudepigraphical is the Odes of Solomon. It is considered pseudepigraphical because it was not actually written by Solomon but instead is a collection of early Christian (first to second century) hymns and poems, originally written not in Hebrew, and apocryphal because they were not accepted in either the Tanakh or the New Testament.''

This seems to suggests that:
 * apocrypha = deuterocanonical + pseudepigrapha (in Protestant view)
 * apocrypha = pseudepigrapha (in Catholic view)

And the latter is not clear in this article. Pseudepigrapha are mentioned in the article, but how fit in the topic remains unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deuterocanonical and Biblical Apocrypha can be used to describe the same books, but they have a different status, in Roman Catholic tradition the books are consider deuterocanonical so they are considered fully canonical and in Catholic bibles are printed in the Old Testament, so the order of the books is not what you would see in other Bibles - This article is discussing how various bibles have printed the apocryphal books, where they have been published separately from the Old and New Testaments. The section in this article "Pseudepigrapha" should probably be removed as it includes books that are not within the scope of this article.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For books whose inclusion in the Old Testament canon is controversial, see Deuterocanonical books.
Yet that issue is what this article addresses. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Apocrypha
Hey everyone. I wondering if anyone should create a list of biblical Apocrypha (in different sections too)?. The reason is that there are so many apocrypha out there and everyday are very overwhelmed at the volumes of the them. Just my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.181.195.42 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would love to see someone add a new section that outlines the books which fall into this category. --Tojasonharris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This heavily depends on the definition of what an apocrypha is (thus it is possibly a POV issue). Veverve (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would need to outline from various perspectives. Perhaps in a table. Unfortunately I'm not well enough versed on the topic to do this. But there does seem to be enough definition to give some guidance on this. Tojasonharris (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

wiki translator function incorrect for grc letter υ ?
In the pronunciation guide, if it is an automatic transliteration from the Greek to Latin, then the letter υ should not be rendered as a 'u' (apokruphos) but rather a 'y' (or at least an 'i'). I would have corrected it as a typo, but I believe it might be auto-generated; if so, then perhaps it has created other such errors elsewhere. Dho1 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)