Update: I pressed each page in this volume flat using a bone folder, working first back to front, then front to back. It now lies open and very nearly flat. As far as I can tell, the procedure didn't damage the binding.
Thank you! I have always appreciated your thorough reviews. This series has been quite helpful to me. I am looking to purchase a stand-alone Apocrypha for a gift this year for one of my friends. Although this one would not be the best fit for her, I do think I will purchase a copy for my borther-in-law, who uses the ESV exclusively.
Thank you for the kind comment, Rachel! Now that I've gotten it to lie open, my only issue with this edition is its lack of references. But for someone who needs only the text in a very good translation, this should work well.
@@RGrantJones They are fine. The red is dark and somewhat purple (to my eye), which I like. Like you, I prefer black letter text, and I have pretty good eyesight. I'm not sure how easy it would be for someone with older eyes. I'm only in my mid 30's and I don't where glasses or anything.
@@joabthejavelin5119 - thanks. I'm glad to hear it. I think Cambridge generally does a good job with red ink, better than anyone else I know of - but I doubt I could handle such small and thin characters in it.
I have ordered this copy and should arrive soon. I use my ESV Pew and Worship Bible, large print with the Lutheran Bible companion set from Concordia which also has notes on the apocrypha. So, I think this will go well with the Bible companion set. The Bible companion set gives enough information about the apocrypha without burdening you will too much detail which allows for good free reading of the Bible and the apocrypha. I will leave the extensive detail to younger people.
Could you tell us if there were any differences in Tobit between this and the ESV-CE? Now ya got me wondering if the recent standalone 9.5 font no-notes ed of the ESV Bible with Apocrypha might lie flatter, or have other advantages beyond being integrated, as well as what other strengths & weaknesses it might have in comparison to the standalone. From an unthorough review online it looks like the integrated version might not include the intro to the apocrypha, but I think that is included in the Diadem from what I remember of your review.
Hi! I've a question about the @Esdras chapter 7! How many verses have Cambridge English Standard Version (ESV) Apocrypha & Cambridge Diadem English Standard Version (ESV) Reference Bible, with the Apocrypha 70 or 140???
1 enoch has never been classified as part of the apocrypha but rather the pseudepigrapha. Although many people use "apocrypha" to refer to any noncanonical biblical book, it technically only refers to the books of the old testament considered canonical by both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches but not Protestants.
Well, yes and no. There are books in what the protestants call the standard Apocrypha that are in neither Orthodox or Catholic canon. I think there is also not agreement among the Christian churches over which would be called Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha or canon with some books. While the canon had already long been set, in light of evidence in the last century or so, many Catholic and Orthodox commentators and officially approved commentaries will cite 1 Enoch as a legit reference though not canonical, seem to regard it as partially deuterocanonical almost, though not officially. I think even the Orthodox Church's Ancient Faith Radio main program opens with a passage from 1 Enoch every time.
@@williamearle6281 I understand what you're saying and I did oversimplify somewhat. It would have been more accurate to say the "apocrypha" in English bible history refers to books included in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox copies of the scriptures that are not accepted as canonical by Protestants. Historically English bibles going back to Miles Coverdale designated as "apocrypha" the extra old testament books in the vulgate (which included 1-2 Esdras and Prayer of Mannasseh since they were copied with the Vulgate despite being noncanonical). Eventually the missing canonical book of the Eastern Orthodox churches (3 Maccabees) and the extra book included as an appendix in Greek bibles (4 Maccabees) were added to include all "extra" books that appeared in western and eastern copies of the Bible. For better or worse 1 Enoch was never a part of either canonical/textual tradition. As an aside, I'm surprised if an Eastern Orthodox podcast is opening with a quote from 1 Enoch. There are very good reasons to be wary of 1 Enoch purely on a textual basis. We are dependent on 14th century Ethiopic translations for the "complete" text of 1 Enoch. We do have some Greek and Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch, but they only amount to a few pages. Even where we can compare the texts there are places where the Ethiopic has entire paragraphs not in the Greek. Not to mention that we have never found any Greek or Aramaic evidence of the notorious "similitudes of enoch." Ultimately, we can't be confident that the Ethiopic 1 Enoch is a reliable representation of what 1 Enoch looked like in the 1st century.
@@gilbertculloden87 I think that's why some of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox commentators have suggested it seems to be at least partly "authentic" but acknowledge we cannot be certain of the whole. Personally I share their view and look on it favorably while exercising caution and judgment as best I can. Somewhat on the subject, I agree with trad Christian commentators who provide a good arguments against "oldest surviving manuscript is always best". As manuscripts usually don't last long. I think the Vulgate and Septuagint provide valuable windows into a time when the translators had access to manuscripts that have long since disintegrated. I balance them with modern translations, but think it foolish to disregard them or do the atheist "translations of translations" arguments. And 1 Enoch was included in some copies of the Septuagint. I don't know why it is in some and not others, if it was dispute or simply that it was missing. I read 2 Esdras is canon in the Slavonic Church, though I'm not familiar with what distinguishes them from Greek/Eastern Orthodox. I think they are maybe the Churches of Armenia and or Georgia.
I have read apocrypha. The only scripture-like books in 18 books of apocrypha are Wisdom and Sirach. They are not written by the prophets though. Rest are semi historical and fictional books, which are Jewish nationalistic literature and pious folklore. I think books called Esdras were written by Christians and not Jews because they mention the Holy Spirit.
To label the the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament 'apocrypha' is not just false marketing, it is a very grave sin against Almighty God and His Holy Church. St John's warning at the end of his Apocalypse can be understood to apply to all of canonical Scripture: _"If anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book."_ No one goes to Heaven who does not accept ALL the books of canonical Scripture.
Curiously, do you believe Jerome is not in heaven? In his vulgate prologues, he calls most of the deuterocanonicals "apocrypha" and considers them outside canonical scripture. In Jerome's prologue to Kings he states: "This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles." Additionally in his prologue to the wisdom books, Jerome mentions Sirach and Wisdom of solomon, stating: "Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
@@gilbertculloden87 Yes, St Jerome failed to give proper heed to the Councils of Hippo (384) and Carthage (397) which defined the true corpus of Scripture, but they were only regional councils, and therefore not universally binding on the whole Church. But the Council of Trent's decree _De Canonicis Scripturis_ of 1546 is universally binding, and that *anathematises* those who dissent from the Church's canon of Scripture. Had St Jerome lived after that time and not acceded to the Church's formal teaching on this matter, he would have lost his soul. People need to wake up and understand the horrifying pride and wickedness involved in defying the infallible magisterium of the Church. It bars them from Heaven outright.
@@allwillberevealed777 Read them by all means and seek to discern why the Church defines them as apocryphal. That is the path of Wisdom. Remember that 'apocryphal' doesn't mean that everything in these books is false, merely that they are of human rather than divine inspiration. That said, there is much of truth and interest in them.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
Update: I pressed each page in this volume flat using a bone folder, working first back to front, then front to back. It now lies open and very nearly flat. As far as I can tell, the procedure didn't damage the binding.
Wisdom of Sirach is one of my favorite books Along with the book of Genesis and Psalms in my Bible.
Thank you! I have always appreciated your thorough reviews. This series has been quite helpful to me. I am looking to purchase a stand-alone Apocrypha for a gift this year for one of my friends. Although this one would not be the best fit for her, I do think I will purchase a copy for my borther-in-law, who uses the ESV exclusively.
Thank you for the kind comment, Rachel! Now that I've gotten it to lie open, my only issue with this edition is its lack of references. But for someone who needs only the text in a very good translation, this should work well.
I got the ESV Diadem in hardback and I liked it so much that I also just got it a few days ago in calfskin. Thank you for the reviews.
Thanks for commenting, Joab the Javelin! How are the red letters? Are they dark enough for you?
@@RGrantJones for mine it is dark enough
@@RGrantJones They are fine. The red is dark and somewhat purple (to my eye), which I like. Like you, I prefer black letter text, and I have pretty good eyesight. I'm not sure how easy it would be for someone with older eyes. I'm only in my mid 30's and I don't where glasses or anything.
@@chris12780 - thanks!
@@joabthejavelin5119 - thanks. I'm glad to hear it. I think Cambridge generally does a good job with red ink, better than anyone else I know of - but I doubt I could handle such small and thin characters in it.
I have ordered this copy and should arrive soon. I use my ESV Pew and Worship Bible, large print with the Lutheran Bible companion set from Concordia which also has notes on the apocrypha. So, I think this will go well with the Bible companion set. The Bible companion set gives enough information about the apocrypha without burdening you will too much detail which allows for good free reading of the Bible and the apocrypha. I will leave the extensive detail to younger people.
Excellent review, very thorough!
An excellent review as always!
Thanks very much for the encouraging comment, Gilbert!
Any chance of you ever reviewing the Baronius Vulgate/Challoner Bible? It's one of a few I have had my eye on, but never pull the trigger on.
Thanks for the question, allan! Does it cost around $170? At that price, it's very unlikely I will pick up a copy, since I don't read Latin.
Could you tell us if there were any differences in Tobit between this and the ESV-CE? Now ya got me wondering if the recent standalone 9.5 font no-notes ed of the ESV Bible with Apocrypha might lie flatter, or have other advantages beyond being integrated, as well as what other strengths & weaknesses it might have in comparison to the standalone. From an unthorough review online it looks like the integrated version might not include the intro to the apocrypha, but I think that is included in the Diadem from what I remember of your review.
I think Tobit is the same in the two, but I would have to read them carefully side by side to be sure.
@@RGrantJones Thanks, BTW I freeze-framed the mentioned review of the integrated and it does include the intro to the Apocrypha.
Hi!
I've a question about the @Esdras chapter 7! How many verses have Cambridge English Standard Version (ESV) Apocrypha & Cambridge Diadem English Standard Version (ESV) Reference Bible, with the Apocrypha 70 or 140???
140
@@RGrantJones Both of them???
@@krzysztofpocian6560 - yes.
@@RGrantJones Thank You!!!
It doesn’t include Enoch?? Big missed opportunity there.
No, 1 Enoch isn't included. Thanks for commenting, C S!
1 enoch has never been classified as part of the apocrypha but rather the pseudepigrapha. Although many people use "apocrypha" to refer to any noncanonical biblical book, it technically only refers to the books of the old testament considered canonical by both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches but not Protestants.
Well, yes and no. There are books in what the protestants call the standard Apocrypha that are in neither Orthodox or Catholic canon. I think there is also not agreement among the Christian churches over which would be called Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha or canon with some books. While the canon had already long been set, in light of evidence in the last century or so, many Catholic and Orthodox commentators and officially approved commentaries will cite 1 Enoch as a legit reference though not canonical, seem to regard it as partially deuterocanonical almost, though not officially. I think even the Orthodox Church's Ancient Faith Radio main program opens with a passage from 1 Enoch every time.
@@williamearle6281 I understand what you're saying and I did oversimplify somewhat. It would have been more accurate to say the "apocrypha" in English bible history refers to books included in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox copies of the scriptures that are not accepted as canonical by Protestants.
Historically English bibles going back to Miles Coverdale designated as "apocrypha" the extra old testament books in the vulgate (which included 1-2 Esdras and Prayer of Mannasseh since they were copied with the Vulgate despite being noncanonical). Eventually the missing canonical book of the Eastern Orthodox churches (3 Maccabees) and the extra book included as an appendix in Greek bibles (4 Maccabees) were added to include all "extra" books that appeared in western and eastern copies of the Bible. For better or worse 1 Enoch was never a part of either canonical/textual tradition.
As an aside, I'm surprised if an Eastern Orthodox podcast is opening with a quote from 1 Enoch. There are very good reasons to be wary of 1 Enoch purely on a textual basis. We are dependent on 14th century Ethiopic translations for the "complete" text of 1 Enoch. We do have some Greek and Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch, but they only amount to a few pages. Even where we can compare the texts there are places where the Ethiopic has entire paragraphs not in the Greek. Not to mention that we have never found any Greek or Aramaic evidence of the notorious "similitudes of enoch." Ultimately, we can't be confident that the Ethiopic 1 Enoch is a reliable representation of what 1 Enoch looked like in the 1st century.
@@gilbertculloden87 I think that's why some of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox commentators have suggested it seems to be at least partly "authentic" but acknowledge we cannot be certain of the whole. Personally I share their view and look on it favorably while exercising caution and judgment as best I can. Somewhat on the subject, I agree with trad Christian commentators who provide a good arguments against "oldest surviving manuscript is always best". As manuscripts usually don't last long. I think the Vulgate and Septuagint provide valuable windows into a time when the translators had access to manuscripts that have long since disintegrated. I balance them with modern translations, but think it foolish to disregard them or do the atheist "translations of translations" arguments. And 1 Enoch was included in some copies of the Septuagint. I don't know why it is in some and not others, if it was dispute or simply that it was missing. I read 2 Esdras is canon in the Slavonic Church, though I'm not familiar with what distinguishes them from Greek/Eastern Orthodox. I think they are maybe the Churches of Armenia and or Georgia.
Does this have 2nd Esdras Chapter 7, verses 70-140?
Yes.
I have a 20 yr old print of a Cambridge Apocrypha
I have read apocrypha. The only scripture-like books in 18 books of apocrypha are Wisdom and Sirach. They are not written by the prophets though. Rest are semi historical and fictional books, which are Jewish nationalistic literature and pious folklore. I think books called Esdras were written by Christians and not Jews because they mention the Holy Spirit.
To label the the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament 'apocrypha' is not just false marketing, it is a very grave sin against Almighty God and His Holy Church. St John's warning at the end of his Apocalypse can be understood to apply to all of canonical Scripture:
_"If anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book."_
No one goes to Heaven who does not accept ALL the books of canonical Scripture.
Thanks for commenting, Timotheos Petros!
Curiously, do you believe Jerome is not in heaven? In his vulgate prologues, he calls most of the deuterocanonicals "apocrypha" and considers them outside canonical scripture.
In Jerome's prologue to Kings he states:
"This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles."
Additionally in his prologue to the wisdom books, Jerome mentions Sirach and Wisdom of solomon, stating:
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
@@gilbertculloden87 Yes, St Jerome failed to give proper heed to the Councils of Hippo (384) and Carthage (397) which defined the true corpus of Scripture, but they were only regional councils, and therefore not universally binding on the whole Church. But the Council of Trent's decree _De Canonicis Scripturis_ of 1546 is universally binding, and that *anathematises* those who dissent from the Church's canon of Scripture. Had St Jerome lived after that time and not acceded to the Church's formal teaching on this matter, he would have lost his soul. People need to wake up and understand the horrifying pride and wickedness involved in defying the infallible magisterium of the Church. It bars them from Heaven outright.
@@timotheospetros
What about the books in the Ethiopian Bible? 🤨
@@allwillberevealed777 Read them by all means and seek to discern why the Church defines them as apocryphal. That is the path of Wisdom. Remember that 'apocryphal' doesn't mean that everything in these books is false, merely that they are of human rather than divine inspiration. That said, there is much of truth and interest in them.