Talk:Apocrypha

message: From reading the article, I get the impression that the term seems to have a negative connotation in most historical contexts. Wouldn't it be worthwhile adding Martin Luther's pointed yet somewhat balanced definition "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read" (quoted from here)? --Anna (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther's Definition 

message: I have seen references that say that King James First's translaters had translated the Apocrapha and that it was included in early translations of the Holy Bible. I wish to have his translation recognized for what it is. I plan to expand on this quite soon. 
: - RCNesland ----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocrapha, King James Version 

message: I came to this page because I wanted to understand apocrypha better, and before the end of the introduction, I was assaulted by glaring untruths. I refer specifically to this part:
"The general term is usually applied to the books in the Roman Catholic Bible or the Christian old testament, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible, but not the Protestant Bible on their claim that it is not God's word. So, for Protestant denominations, it is misleading in this sense to refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or even the Gnostic writings as apocryphal, because they would not be classified in the same category: by Protestants they would be classified as a heretical subset of antilegomenae..."
I grew up in a protestant church, and they never referred to apocrypha as "not God's word" or "heretical". On the contrary, members of my church actively sought to read obscure apocryphal texts in order to more fully understand their religion. Another commenter here was asking "which protestant church?" and that indeed is a good question since there are so many that are so different. (For example, the Anglican church, which is protestant, is basically the same as the Roman Catholic church. Not the same as the protestants who go to Megachurches in America.)
To boot, the quoted section above is horribly written. This article badly needs a re-write by experts.Guypersonson (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted a rewrite of the introductory material only correcting some blatant errors and WP:POV. It's a step closer. Evenssteven (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion on possible merger from Biblical apocrypha at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#Should_article_Biblical_apocrypha_be_renamed_Apocrypha? – Fayenatic London 13:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a re-write by experts 

message: "The differences can be found by looking here", where the words "looking here" are a link to another Wikipedia page, doesn't seem like acceptable form. I've never seen it in any other Wikipedia article. 73.46.208.17 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual link format 

message: I was surprised that were are no citation tags in this article, as it states one thing after another on the apocrypha without any references. And what was there was pretty stated or inferred much propaganda which Catholics are told, such as that the original LXX of the Hebrews contained the  apocrypha, which cannot be proven and their is evidence against it, nor did later ones testify to an established inclusion of the apocrypha as they are not even close to being uniform. And that the Catholic canon  was settled from the 4th c. till Luther and the Reformation came along and removed 7 books, which also is simply not true. For significant scholarly doubts about the nature of the Apocrypha continued for centuries and into Trent  which provided the first infallible definition of the Catholic canon in 1546  - after Luther died. And who, as per ancient practice, separately included  the doubtful books in his non-binding (he made that clear) translation, and had substantial support for his doubts about books he did not consider Scripture proper, though as with Jerome, he could quote truths from them (Paul could quote pagans).  
Thus by God's grace,  I added some referenced correction and balance to the article, though I expect someone to come along and delete it as being contrary to what they want history to say. 
See  here if you want for more on this issue. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Few refs, misleading and biased

message: This article suffered from a lack of organization and thus redundancy and seemed to have little editorial interest in this regard. Therefore I placed much of the lengthy Intro to a section under Christianity titled Disputes over canonicity. There are two related issues being dealt with as I see it, what  "Apocrypha" means and  where it is variously used, as well as why and how  certain writings came to be classed as apocrypha. Hopefully the latter is better explained now and with less redundancy, and with many more references. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apocrypha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809124209/http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.PDF to http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206105955/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231095249/http://gbgm-umc.org:80/umw/Bible/ethold.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/ethold.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040614161145/http://www.comparative-religion.com:80/christianity/apocrypha/ to http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Other section needs to be incorporated into the Christianity section. Editor2020 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned up and reorganized much of the article but have still not merged the Other sectiom. Editor2020 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional changes needed 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Non-canonical. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  SWinxy (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also 2 others - I'd urge people to comment there! Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-canonical" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: changed the lead last year, but made this article redundant to Biblical apocrypha and put it at odds with its own content on other religions. I have restored the old lead, but some content has been lost that may deserve restoring somewhere, either in this article or another. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Srnec, I have no objection with your edits other than the deletion of certain references, which I have restored. I have also restored two small clauses that provide context. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The book of clement  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.5.28 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocrypha