Septuagint & Apocrypha: Define Our Terms

Before we go further, let's define our terms.

The tension-loaded "Apocrypha" as a term solely for the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, and Baruch) and using the term to mean 'un-Biblical' is a Protestant trend. The original term "apocrypha" is medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide. It was generally used by the early church fathers (and Jewish scholars before them) to indicate that EITHER the books were not used by them during their own particular liturgies OR that the books had questionable value and/or contents.  Its very earliest usage has been obscured by the passage of time, but it is "highly probable that in its original meaning an apocryphal writing had no unfavorable import, but simply denoted a composition which claimed a sacred origin, and was supposed to have been hidden for generations, either absolutely, awaiting the due time of its revelation, or relatively, inasmuch as knowledge of it was confined to a limited esoteric circle." There are many, many, many Apocryphal writings: among these are the 1st and 2nd books of Adam and Eve, Testament of Reuben, and Gospel of Thomas. The sole reason I have labeled this section of the website "Apocrypha" is because that is- for better or for worse- what the deuterocanonical books have come to be called.

Canon originally meant that it was a valid scripture and used during the liturgy. I'm going to quote from Catholic Bridge.com because they explain this concisely and it matches with what I've read elsewhere. Specifically note that I have read this same thought/ideas/facts at multiple other sources…this is simply a concisely put together definition:
     "Before the late 4th Century, each city-church had its own, local "canon" of the Bible, and these local canons differed from city-church to city-church ---some local canons including books which are currently excluded from our present Bible (such as 1 Clement to the Corinthians, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Book of Enoch, etc.), and some local canons excluding books which are currently included in our present Bible (such as the Epistle of James, and Hebrews, and 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The reason that city-churches had different local canons is because city-churches had different local Liturgies --that is, the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-church of Rome was different from the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-Church of Corinth, or the city-church of Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, etc. This included the yearly Liturgical calendar, with different city-churches celebrating different local feast days on any given date."
           http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php
For another, exhaustive, very long history of the term canon, see: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Now, obviously, the term canon has grown to mean more. Currently, the term 'canon' is seen as identical with "Scripture" and/or "inspired" (aka- "official" Word of God). As I'm writing to an educated, but not scholastic audience, I am going to use the current "Apocrypha" and "canon" to mean "deuterocanonical books" and "official Scripture." This is both for ease of understanding and because, as times change, our word usage changes. 

Post 1 of this series was "Septuagint: Introduction and Basic Definition"



The material for these posts will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. I'm learning as I continue to research. Should you find an error, please let me know! Please, please, reference "Canon History" for the most up-to-date, accurate information!