Hello all:
I’m curious about everyone’s opinion regarding the Apocryphal books.
One of the reasons that Luther omitted the Apocryphal books from his translation of the bible was because they appeared in the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version of the Torah. The books were thought to have been written in Greek, not in Hebrew. The Catholics and Orthodox have held them to be inspired in at least some sense, some more than others, while protestant churches have generally held them to be accurate or semi-accurate history but not inspired.
Now, I’ve heard that scholars going through the Dead Sea Scrolls have found fragments of Apocryphal books in Hebrew.
The apocryphal books were part of the canon for 1600 years or so. Do you think they should still be a part of the Old Testament? We in the Churches of Christ have been very anti-Catholic, have we let this color our opinion, or has our opinion been correct?
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
April 19th, 2006 at 3:46
Hey Clarke,
My understanding is that the Jews did not consider the apocrypha to be inspired scripture, but rather useful history. As you said, they were not considered part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) though they were part of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate Old Testament. Here is an article on the subject from the Jewish Virtual Library It seems pretty clear from that article that modern day Jews do not consider them to be inspired scripture, though they are of historical value.
Here is the same article on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs site.
April 19th, 2006 at 4:56
Clarke-
I think we need some clarification to your question. What apocryphal books are you talking about? Are you talking about the intertestamental books that are in Catholic Bibles? Or are you speaking of all apocryphal books? Just wondering.
I will give my opinion any way. I am comfortable with the canon the way it is but still want to acknowledge that other books that are just out of the canon still have some benefit. For instance, Esdras and Maccabees are beneficial, giving us an important piece of intertestamental history, some of which is helpful to know when studying the gospels. Also, there are books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Diadache which are early Christian books that are not in the canon that are very helpful, especially the Didache. But, if you are talking about the Gospel of Peter or the newly discovered Gospel of Judas, those books simply promote myths and legends and don’t have much benefit. I say all of this to say that these books are beneficial whether they are in or not. I don’t think we should expand the canon. We don’t use all of the canon that we have now.
I will also tell you that a helpful book, and actually one of the best books I read while in grad school, is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. He tells the story of the process of canonization and asks some helpful questions about canon. I highly recommend it.
Thanks.
Kent
April 19th, 2006 at 8:00
“How We Got the Bible” by Neil R. Lightfoot is an excellent read.
Most of the ‘apochryphal’ books are legendary stories that do not have anything to do with the old covenant story. The additional historical books contain many inaccuracies not found in the other books. These books to not rise to the same standard as the existing old testament books. The accepted OT books were pretty much standardized before Jesus’ time on earth and he accepted and taught from them.
We know lists of accepted books existed as early as the second century so medievel ‘canonization conspiracy thoeries’ don’t hold up either.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:02
One other comment. The fact they are not accepted has nothing to do with being anti-catholic, but more of accepting the OT that the jews accepted at the time of Jesus.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:24
Kent:
I am talking about the inter-testamental books that appear in the Catholic and Orthodox Bible, not the “Gnostic Gospels.” It is unfortunate that many are calling those books apocryphal and “the lost books of the bible” because no Christian group uses them as scripture.
Alan:
I got this from talking to a Catholic with a D.Min yesterday, for what thats worth.
She believes that the Jews used the Apocryphal books until about 70AD, and believes they were removed by Pharisees that wished to rid “the sacred memory” of all things Herod and Hasmonian.
TechSun:
Welcome. Are you COC?
-Clarke
April 19th, 2006 at 10:47
I’ll have to go back and check but I had heard that they were not considered officially a part of the canon until the Council of Trent. We need to ask whose canon. AIUI, there is variation between the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox as to what books belong in the OT. There are even issues w/ the NT. Some smaller churches in the Mideast do not include all of the NT books that we use and the Eithiopian Orthodox include 1 or 2 books in the NT that nobody else uses.
Owen
April 19th, 2006 at 15:34
Hey Clarke,
I’m sure the Jews “used” them in those days. But as far as I can tell they have never been considered inspired scripture by the Jews. Quoting from
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/apocrypha.html
The Jewish Canon does not include the Apocrypha. This is significant as it was to the Jews that the OT was entrusted (Rom 3:1,2) and they are the custodians of the limits of their own canon. (Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek, not Hebrew).
The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of divinely inspired canon.
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.
Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian explicitly excluded the Apocrypha, speaking of the number of Jewish books which are divinely trustworthy, not leaving a place for the apocryphal books. . He numbered the OT books as 22 (the equivalent of the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament). Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority.
The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, both of whom lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.
There are several statements by Rabbis that prophecy ceased in the fourth century B.C. acknowledging that the Apocrypha was written in a period when God had ceased giving inspired writings.
Alan
April 19th, 2006 at 19:21
Owen:
Interesting. I was reading today that many questioned 2nd and 3rd John and that those letters almost were not included in the canon because of their small circulation among the churches. Let us know what you find out.
Alan:
Thats good information. Have you come across any explanations for why they were included in the Septuagent?
-Clarke
April 20th, 2006 at 5:10
By the time of the Muratorian Fragment, we know the ‘canon’ of scripture was already pretty much put together by the middle of the second century.
We know from Eusebius that the universally accepted books were the four Gospels, Acts, 14 letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. The remainder of the books (James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John were disputed, but “recognized by the majority”. Disputed not because of different teaching but because of their limited circulation among churches.
the so called ‘councils’ did not cannonize anything, they only confirmed what was already accepted for centuries.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:49
Clarke,
My understanding is that they were included in the Septuagint as useful supporting history. I can’t really say definitively however.
Alan
April 26th, 2006 at 10:18
Hey Clarke,
Make Techsun give you the secret handshake so we can know if he’s legit!
-j
June 16th, 2006 at 18:31
Clarke,
IF you are still interested in the Apocrypha I have some notes online you MAY be interested in. There are some wonderful gems among the these testimonies of the faith of God’s People.
http://www.123jesus.com/Valentine/bvindex.htm
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Stoned-Campbell Disciple
June 16th, 2006 at 20:35
Bobby:
Thanks for the website. I have quite a bit of interest in the apocrypha, I just got done taking a Bible as Literature course and read quite a few passages out of it. I agree with your take on its value for us today.
-Clarke