Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hessayon, Ariel (2015)
Publisher: Oxford UP
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Protestantism is a religion based on an anthology: the Bible. English Protestants, however, generally accepted fewer holy books than Catholics. Scripture alone, rather than the Papacy or Church councils, was paramount for them. Yet which scriptures were to be accepted and which rejected was no straightforward matter. This chapter begins with a brief account of how and why certain Jewish writings came to be regarded as apocryphal, highlighting the crucial contribution Jerome’s contentious canonical theory would ultimately play. It also underscores the fact that the Apocrypha was a Protestant construction, one moreover that reflected the privileging of Jewish texts available in Hebrew over those then extant in Greek. For the gradual evolution of the Apocrypha as a distinct corpus was partially a by-product of the Humanist return to the sources – specifically Hebrew. Previous studies of the Apocrypha in early modern England have tended to stress two points. Firstly, that the removal of these books from the Old Testament was unauthorised, lacking explicit royal and ecclesiastical sanction. Secondly, that their influence was greater than commonly recognised. Both approaches dated from the turn of the twentieth century. While the former may have been motivated by a desire to foster closer ties between Anglicans and Catholics, the latter was intended to rescue these writings from oblivion. As Randall Davidson (1848–1930), Archbishop of Canterbury, put it, ‘a systematic effort should be made to extend the knowledge of people generally about the Apocrypha, and to encourage its more careful study’. Here I want to suggest that in addition the Apocrypha was important because of its inherent potential to exacerbate religious conflict – not just between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, but also between moderate churchmen and puritans.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 3 Jerome, 'Prologus Galeatus', tr. W. H. Fremantle as 'Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings' in Philip Schaf and Henry Wace (eds),Nicene and Post-Nicene Fath,e2rnsd ser. 6 (New York, 1893), 489-90, .
    • 4 Jerome,Epistle,s107.12, quoted in A. S. Jacobs, 'eTh Disorder of Books: Priscillian's Canonical Defense of Apocrypha',Harvard eThological Review, 93 (2000): 157.
    • 8 eTh Holy Bible … Made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wyclief and His Follo,weedr.sJohn Forshall and Frederic Madden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1850), i. 1-2. It is noteworthy that the Wyclitfie Bible did not include an English translation of 2 Esdras.
    • 9 Quoted in Brooke Foss WestcoeThtBti,ble in the Church, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 1866), 201.
    • 10 Andreas Bodenstein von KarlstDadetc,anonicis scripturis libe(llWusittenburg, 1520), Kr2-K3r.
    • 11 Martin Luther, 'Prefaces to the Apocrypha' (1533-L4u)t,hiner's Work,esd. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann (Philadelphia and St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-86), xxxv; WeBsitbcleotint,the Church,259-63. In conversation Luther was if anything even more hostile, reportedly wanting to throw 2 Esdras into the River Elbe, while loathing 2 Maccabees so much that he wished it had never survived.
    • 13 This translation of Jeremiah's epistle diefrs from Coverdale's version which was printed without alteration in Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Taverner's Bible, and the Great Bible.
    • 14 R. H. Charles has suggested that the exclusion of 1 Esdras may have been based on a misunderstanding. Also omitted was 3 Maccabees. R. H. CharleTheAs,pocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English(Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), i, pp. vii, ix-x.
    • 15 Quoted in J. H.  Hayes, 'Historical Criticism of the Old Testament Canon', in Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: eTh History of its Interpreta,itii.oFnrom the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 991.
    • 16 Quoted in Alastair HamiltoeThnA,pocryphal Apocalypse (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1999), 90-1; Eugene Rice,Saint Jerome in the Renaissan(Bcaeltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 187.
    • 17 eTh Volume of the Bokes Called Apocripha(1549), A2r-v. It has been suggested that 1 Esdras, Tobit, and Judith were new translations commissioned for this Bible. H. Howorth, 'eTh Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon in the Anglican ChurJocuhr', nal of eThological Studie,sos 8 (1906), 17. 3 Maccabees also appeared here for the first and only time in a printed English Bible.
    • 18 Articles Whereupon It Was Agreed by the Archbishoppes and Bi(s1h57o1p)p, e6s, 21.
    • 19 'To the Reader Mercy and Peace through Christ Our SaveThiNouewr',e Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ(1575), ¶2v.
    • 20 On the interpretive machinery of the Geneva Bible, see the chapter by Femke Molekamp in this volume.
    • 21 eTh Bible and Holy Scriptures Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testam(Geennteva, 1560), 386.
    • 24 William PerkinsA, godlie and learned exposition upon the whole Epistle o(1f6Ju0d6)e, 111.
    • 25 Samuel Otes,An Explanation of the Generall Epistle of Saint(J1u6d3e3), 309-11.
    • 26 Patrick Collinson, 'Cartwright, oThmas (1534/5-1603O)D',NB, 2004 .
    • 27 Henry BarrowA, Collection of Certaine Sclaunderous Articles Gyven out by the(B15i9sh0)o,pFs3v; Henry BarrowA, Brief Discoverie of the False Chu(r15c9h0), 65-6, 76.
    • 28 William Barlo weTh,Summe and Substance of the Conferenc(e1605), 59-63.
    • 29 Cf. Geneva Bible annotations to 2 Maccabees 12: 44, 14: 37-46.
    • 30 An Abridgement of that Booke Which the Ministers of Lincolne Diocese Delivered to H(i1s61M7)a,jestie 6-8; Samuel HieronA, Defence of the Ministers Reas(oAnmssterdam?, 1607), part 2, 115-17.
    • 31 Andrew WilletS,ynopsis Papismi… Now iThs Second Time Perused and Published(1594), 8.
    • 32 John Canne,A Necessitie of Separation from the Church of En(Agmlasntderdam, 1634), 108-9.
    • 33 John RogersA, Godly & Fruitful Exposition upon All the First Epistle of(P16e5t0e)r, 100.
    • 34 oThmas Cooper, An Admonition to the People of Engla(1n5d89), 49.
    • 35 eTh Letters of John Chamberlain,ed. Norman McClure (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1939), i. 276 n. 1.
    • 36 John Bruce (ed.)C,alendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 16(3L4o-n35don: Longman, 1864), 355.
    • 37 Henry BurtonA, Replie to a Relatio(n1640), 196-7.
    • 38 John LightfooEtr,ubhin(1629), 116-17; John LightfooEtl,ias Redivivus(1643), 5-6.
    • 39 John VicarsU,nholsome Henbane(1645), 1, 8.
    • 40 Edward LeighA, Treatise of Divinit(1y646), 83-91, 90.
    • 41 Articles of Christian Relig(i1o6n48), 4; eTh Confession of Faith and Catechism(s1649), 4. It is noteworthy that a 1648 edition of the King James Bible printed for the London Stationers' Company purposefully omitted the Apocrypha.
    • 42 Edmund Calamy, eTh Nonconformist's Memoria,l ed. Samuel Palmer (London:  Button & Son, 1802-3), i. 42.
    • 43 Judith and Holofernes also inspired dramatic treatments by Guillaume de Salluste Du Bartas (c.1574) as well as several German playwrights; notably Georg Wickram (1539), Cornelius Schonaeus (1592), Martin Behm (1618), and Friedrich Hebbel (1840). Bredenhof, W. 'Guy de Brès and the ApocryphWa'.estminster eThological Journa,l74 (2012): 305-21. Cadbury, H.  J. 'Early Quakerism and Uncanonical LHoraer'.vard eThological Review, 40 (1947): 177-205. Champion, J.  A. I. 'Apocrypha, Canon and Criticism from Samuel Fisher to John Toland 1650-1718', in A. P.  Coudert, Sarah Hutton, R. H.  Popkin, and G. M.  Weiner (eds), Judaeo-Christian Intellectual Culture in the Seventeenth Century: A Celebration of the Library of Narcissus Marsh (1638-171(3D)ordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), 97-124. Charles, R. H., ed.eTh Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in Eng,l2isvhols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913; repr. 1973). Gallagher, E. L. 'eTh Old Testament “Apocrypha” in Jerome's Canonical eThoryJo'.urnal of Early Christian Studi,e2s0 (2012): 213-33. Goodman, Martin, John Barton, and John Muddiman, eeThdAs.pocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Greenslade S. L., edeTh. Cambridge History of the Bibl,eiii.eTh West from the Reformation to the Present Day(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Hamilton, AlastaieThrA.pocryphal Apocalypse: eTh Reception of the Second Book of Esdras (4 Ezra) from the Renaissance to the Enlighten(Omxefnotrd: Clarendon Press, 1999).
    • 45 oThmas Fuller, A Pisgah-Sight of Palesti(n1e650), v. 192.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article