'Authorized Apocrypha' — an oxymoron?

[dropzone]

Somebody donated a book to the church library entitled The Apocrypha (Authorized Edition. Um, who authorizes apocrypha? Aren’t they BY DEFINITION unauthorized?

[Saint_Zero]

I would say so. It does seem contradictory to have a “Authorized” version of “writings or statements of dubious authenticity”.

I even included the definitions of “Authorized” and “Apocrypha” below. Thanks to http://www.m-w.com

1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : TESTIMONY c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b : freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT
3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>
4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b : convincing force

and

Etymology: Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide – more at CRYPT
Date: 14th century
1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament – see BIBLE table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

[tomndebb]

The Authorized Version of the Bible is the English translation authorized by King James I/VI of England/Scotland, more familiarly known as the King James Bible. Since Protestants do not accept the Deutero-Canonical/Apocryphal works, they are usually omitted from publications of the KJV. (AV = KJV)

However, the Apocrypha has been translated and, when published to accompany the KJV, it is sometimes referred to as the “Authorized” version.

[dropzone]

Nope. The book is by itself. Funny–I thought that a lot of this was in the REGULAR bible. Like Judith and Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, and Daniel versus the dragon and all that fun stuff.

Checking further, yes they’re in the Catholic Bible, but not in the KJV, so that clears up SOME of the confusion. It’ll be a nice addition to the library, along with the Koran I just bought. I’ll have a nice little “Comparative Religions” section eventually along with my expansion of the “Biblical Archeology” section. I love these people! They are so open-minded and are glad that somebody besides them is doing it so I can have some fun.

[dqa]

tomndebb is basically correct here. In recent years, the apocryphal books as authorized and translated in that section of the original KJV in 1611 have often been left out.

Neither the fact that your publisher has chosen to issue the apocrypha as a separate volume nor the fact that most protestants reject their authenticity and so modern Bibles omit them changes the fact that the translations were authorized by King James.

[dropzone]

Thanks, dqa. I think that was the answer I was looking for. And thanks to tom (I’ve always wondered: Where the hell is deb?) and His Sainthood.

[Saint_Zero]

Actually, Juliana (Her Royal Ladyship, Mrs Zero) and I discussed this while convincing our toddlers to go to sleep last night. My view being you can’t have an authorized version of something where the authorship or doctrinal worth has been challenged and dumped. Her view was that they were called “Authorized” because they were there in the first place, King James dumped them. I see her point now.

And it did put the kids to sleep. Score One for my OT classes at MC.