Deuterocanonicals/apocrypha

[Fencer]

I don't quite understand... what is the difference between the apocrypha and the deuterocanonicals and the protocanonicals?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fencer' post='1326031' date='Jul 12 2007, 03:27 PM']I don't quite understand... what is the difference between the apocrypha and the deuterocanonicals and the protocanonicals?[/quote]
There are different possible meanings for those words but I will summarize the most common denotations.

The word "apocrypha", in the context of the Old Testament canon, is generally used as a synonym for the "deuterocanon" (second canon). While Catholics generally describe those Old Testament books specific to the Catholic canon of Scripture as the deuterocanonicals it is common for Protestants to call these books the apocrypha.
At times this can have negative connotations since describing writings as apocryphal can imply that they are spurious or of doubtful authenticity.
The protocanonicals (proto-canon: first canon) are those books which are common to the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments.

As I recall the deuterocanonical (or apocryphal) texts in question are as follows.

Tobit
Judith
Parts of Esther
Baruch
Sirach
Wisdom
Parts of Daniel
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Those Old Testament books not listed would qualify as protocanonical. One distinguishing characteristic of the protocanonicals is that they share an integral Hebrew manuscript tradition.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Sean answered well, but I'd like to add that while many Protestants may call the books he listed (which Catholics accept and Protestants do not) "apocryphal" and Catholics call them "deuterocanonical," there are other books which Catholics do not accept as inspired (and are therefore "apocryphal"), such as the "Gospel of Thomas" (a gnostic text), the "Protoevangelium of James," the "Gospel of Judas" (another gnostic text), etc. These apocryphal books include texts of various heretical sects (mostly gnostics) as well as uninspired, yet most likely accurate texts with important but uninspired historical facts.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1327416' date='Jul 13 2007, 05:28 PM']Sean answered well, but I'd like to add that while many Protestants may call the books he listed (which Catholics accept and Protestants do not) "apocryphal" and Catholics call them "deuterocanonical," there are other books which Catholics do not accept as inspired (and are therefore "apocryphal"), such as the "Gospel of Thomas" (a gnostic text), the "Protoevangelium of James," the "Gospel of Judas" (another gnostic text), etc. These apocryphal books include texts of various heretical sects (mostly gnostics) as well as uninspired, yet most likely accurate texts with important but uninspired historical facts.[/quote]
Ah yes! Thank Micah: that is an especially important point in light of all the Da Vinci Code type hoopla these days.