Call Old Testament the books of the Catholic Bible "Deuterocanonical books" instead of "Apocrypha"

Question

If you support this, we can add it to the "What to Call" list, if not boo hoo for me.

I'd prefer it if we called:

• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther
• Wisdom
• Sirach
• Baruch
• Additions to Jeremiah
• Additions to Daniel
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

Deuterocanonical instead of Apocrypha. Most of what is legitimately considered apocrypha is just made up stuff to fit a particular brand of theology like the Gnostic Gospels. The Deuterocanonical's were just the traditional texts in the Septuagint, nothing more, nothing less.

There's no good reason to lump them in with the Gospel of Judas.

Answer 1

I very much agree that the Deuterocanonicals included in the Catholic Bible should be treated separately from other apocrypha, such as the 40ish non-canon gospels. Even Luther, while removing them from canon, considered them "useful and good to read" -- which certainly not all apocrypha are.

I agree it's a good guideline to call the mentioned seven books and three additions deuterocanonical.

Just note that we should be careful with what we do here. Oftentimes people don't make that distinction so when they speak of apocrypha, we don't always know what they mean and can't edit. Another issue is that e.g. Eastern Orthodoxy considers 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras deuterocanonical, and some other books are included by some other churches. Moreover, the New Testament canonical antilegomena are sometimes called deuterocanonical.

So yes, it's a good guideline, but I wouldn't want to enforce it. I vote include with disclaimers in the terminology list.

Answer 2

I agree with @dancek.

I think it's a good guideline, but it can't be enforced as a rule. Even if we know that a person is asking specifically about 1 Maccabees, many denominations lump this in with the apocrypha. To deny them the ability to use the word apocrypha is denying a doctrine, not just a wording.

While they may agree and accept the term "deuterocanonical books" instead of "apocrypha", I don't think we can force them to use a particular wording in this instance, as that would be denying them their right to doctrinal interpretation.