[griffin]

"Very interesting. Thanks for the post. Was EVERYONE against the "apocryphal" books before Augustine? Why would Origen need to argue against them if it was commonly believed? I know that the Catholic Apocrypha differs from the Protestant Apocrypha."

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I was such a bonehead about it. I'm not sure if everyone was in agreement that the Apocryphal books prior to Augustine. From what I've seen to date, most early Christian fathers agreed, in general, with Origen and later Jerome. I haven't dug into it yet. It seems the historical accounts I read appear to be tainted with the presenter's bias because some protestant presenters are leaving out some details and other catholic presenters are leaving out details...I'm having to read everything and put the pieces together....Origen did not argue per se against them in 225. It appears to be a conclusion drawn from the records in the way he handled and commented about scripture.

Apocrypha differes? In what way. The Apocrypha books themselves are not in dispute are they? I did not pick up any indication of that. Perhaps if your refering to the differences in subsequent translations since the Septuagint?

[TradicalRC]

There are books such as Tobit and Maccabees in the Catholic canon that Protestants refer to as Apocrypha. There are other books that are extra-canonical in some Catholic Bibles such as Enoch that WE refer to as Apocryphal. I believe that Enoch describes what Christ was doing between dying on the Cross and Ressurecting.