Posted on 03/10/2010 3:50:35 PM PST by NYer
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
—Proverbs 30:5-6, NIV
The canon of scripture—that is, the official list of what’s in the Bible—is not revealed to us by any saying of Jesus, nor does scripture itself contain any list. The canon of scripture is determined by the Church, and there are differences among the various church bodies.
But first a little clarification, because the word “apocrypha” has a second, relatively obscure scholarly use, and we don’t want to get confused. Sometimes you’ll see a reference to the so-called “New Testament Apocrypha,” which is a general term for ancient Christian religious writings in the form of gospels, acts, and epistles that no one in the ancient church ever thought were scriptural. That’s not the topic here.
The historic Church never suppressed or destroyed religious writings it deemed heretical. Some ancient Christian writings, both orthodox and heretical, have been lost, either through happenstance, neglect, or lack of popularity. It wasn’t until the middle ages, and only in the west, that anyone burned heretics or books.
The Apocrypha that we are discussing here consists of books whose canonical status in the Old Testament has come under criticism. The Apocrypha is also called “the deuterocanonical books.” (You can find out the difference between the terms ‘apocrypha’ and ‘deuterocanonical.’)
The Hebrew Bible is divided into three parts, Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (the Prophets), and Ketuvim (the Writings) in Hebrew. Sometimes the Hebrew Bible is called the Tanakh, which is an acronym of Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. In the New Testament era, the third portion, the Writings, were still in the process of becoming canonical—though pretty far along—so the New Testament calls it either “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” or the “Law and the Prophets.”
The modern Jewish Bible is the same as the ancient Hebrew Bible.
About 300 years before the Christian era, the Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, undertook a translation of the Bible (which we call the Old Testament) into Greek. About 70 translators worked on it; hence it is called the Septuagint, from the Latin word for “seventy.” The Temple in Jerusalem furnished the Hebrew scrolls that they used for the translation. Since it is the oldest translation of the Old Testament, translators consult it today for places where it isn’t clear which vowels should go between the consonants in the Hebrew text.
The Septuagint translators gave the books of the Bible Greek names and put them in a different order, categorizing them as Law, history, writings, and prophecy.
So far we have been talking about two Jewish Bibles that differed slightly in content: the Hebrew Bible (the Palestinian canon) and the Greek Bible (the Alexandrian canon), which had a few more books than the Hebrew Bible. The reason they differed is that the third portion (the Writings) were still in the process of becoming canonical.
Christians were so adept at using the Septuagint to make converts that the rabbis decided very early in the Christian era that synagogues would thenceforth only use Hebrew scrolls. Jews have not used the Septuagint for nearly 2,000 years, even though it was a Jewish translation of the Bible. Many lay Christians accused the Jews of editing the Hebrew text to make it less messianic. (See Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 71-73.) This is hardly possible, because the Jews have too much respect for the text to do such a thing. The motive for this accusation was mainly emotional: Christians were under persecution because the rabbis had disowned the church as a Jewish sect, making it an illegal religion; therefore, Christians were quick to accuse the Jews. The ‘changes’ are interpretive and came from the translators who lived a couple of centuries before Christianity.
The Septuagint was the canonical Old Testament of the ancient church, and has remained so in Orthodox churches to this day, which explains its presence here in the Orthodox Study Bible.
The Orthodox Study Bible uses an English-language translation of the Septuagint as its Old Testament.
Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora and therefore also the ancient church used the Septuagint as authoritative Scripture. When you flip back to check a New Testament quotation against the Old Testament text, you may have noticed that they sometimes don’t match. That is because your Old Testament was translated out of Hebrew, but the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint. If your Old Testament had been translated from the Septuagint, the quotes would match.
Because ancient Christians used the Septuagint, Christian Bibles have the books roughly in Septuagint order and use the Septuagint’s names for them. For example, the fourth book of the Bible is “Numbers” in the Septuagint and in Christian Bibles, but it is “In the Wilderness” in Hebrew Bibles. Christian Bibles also follow the Septuagint by splitting the following books into two books each: Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. None of these books fit on a single scroll when they are translated into Greek, because Hebrew is written without vowels. Since Greek requires more letters than Hebrew to say the same thing, the translation takes up more space than the original.
The Septuagint was the foundation for the Christian Bible:
The Septuagint is still the authoritative Old Testament in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Old Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible is an English-language translation of the Septuagint.
The exact content of the Writings portion of the Hebrew Bible hadn’t been fixed even by the New Testament era. The Jews in Alexandria and the Greek-speaking Diaspora had more books in their Bible than the Jews in Palestine had in theirs, so we refer to them as the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The books in the Alexandrian canon that do not appear in the Palestinian canon are called the “Apocrypha” or the “deuterocanonical books.”
The ancient church universally used the Septuagint, which included what we call the Apocrypha. If a person says, “Our church is just like the first-century church,” then for that to be true, they’d have to use Bibles that include the Apocrypha.
By the fifth century, Latin had supplanted Greek as the language of the people in the western Roman Empire, so the bishop of Rome commissioned St. Jerome to make a new Latin translation of the Scriptures, because the older Latin ones were not very good. Jerome went to Bethlehem to learn Hebrew, where he discovered that some of the books in the Septuagint were not in the Palestinian canon. He decided they should not be part of the Bible and refused to translate them. Since those books were in liturgical use, the Roman church supplemented his translation with an older translation of the missing books. The result is called the Vulgate, and it became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church for over 1,000 years.
During the Middle Ages, the public Scripture readings that have always characterized Christian worship gradually excluded the Old Testament, and along with it, the Apocrypha. Many hymns, anthems, and other acts of praise in Christian worship that were widely used from the very beginning were taken from the Apocrypha. One good example of this is verses 29-34 of the Song of the Three Young Men, which is still used in the Rite One Morning Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.
All churches, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, used the Apocrypha through the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church uses it on a par with the rest of Scripture. Martin Luther, who had a doctorate in biblical studies and knew German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, felt they could be used as a worship resource, for faith and morals, and so far as doctrine is concerned, to corroborate it but not to formulate it. In practice, that is how non-Catholic Christians use the Apocrypha.
Martin Luther translated the entire Bible into German, and in doing so, started the convention of placing the Apocrypha in a separate section, apart from the Old Testament and New Testament.
All of the original Protestants used the Apocrypha, though, like everyone else, not very much.
Three committees of translators produced the King James Version: one for the Old Testament, one for the Apocrypha, and one for the New Testament.
Originally it was effectively against the law to print the Bible in America, because the Crown held the copyright on the King James Version (it still does in England) but did not license any printers in their American colonies. The American Revolution made the United States an independent country. Since there were no international copyright treaties at the time, it was possible to print an English Bible in the United States. Shortly after the Revolution, the First Great Awakening created a big demand for Bibles.
For the first time, it was both profitable and legal to print English-language Bibles in America.
American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, “That’s not in my Bible” to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out. A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t.
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use the Apocrypha and it is part of the Bible for them. Many independent churches and low-church denominations are only aware that it is not in their printing of the Bible, and think it is a Catholic addition when it is really a printer’s subtraction.
In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.
The Apocrypha contains a number of edifying stories (some fictional, such as the detective story in which Daniel cross-examines witnesses and saves Susanna from an accusation of adultery) and some good wisdom (Sirach says “Then give the physician his place, for the Lord created him; do not let him leave you, for you need him. There may come a time when recovery lies in the hands of physicians, for they too pray to the Lord that he grant them success in diagnosis and in healing, for the sake of preserving life.”)
The most valuable book is 1 Maccabees, which is required reading for anyone studying the New Testament, because it contains an account of the Maccabean War, which took place about a century before the New Testament. It’s a better source than Josephus. Many of the religious parties that appear in the New Testament, such as Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots, were founded during that time. That war also led to the Jewish misconception that the Messiah would be another Judas Maccabee.
The Apocrypha also contains a lot of polemic against idolatry (such as Bel and the Dragon), which helps us understand what form it took in that era, and that is good background information for studying the Old Testament and the New Testament.
This proverb is not involved in policing the canon, because what we consider to be the Old Testament was not finished yet, and the New Testament lay centuries in the future. In fact, there is no statement in scripture about which books are canonical and which are not; the canon is a feature of the church you belong to. What we are warned against here is a more fundamental, more serious sin: failing to distinguish between what God says and what we’d like Him to say, passing out our own opinions and traditions as if they were the very Word of God. Whether we do this by blatantly appending our own writings to the Bible and proclaiming it as God’s Word or by more insidiously making our own interpretations into a new standard of orthodoxy, it is equally wrong.
Catholic ping!
Thank you for posting this!
I know that back when I was Lutheran I discovered that the LCMS used to include the Apocrypha their Bibles, when the Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis still printed the Bibles in German. When they switched to just English, the “extra” books were dropped. I NEVER heard anything mentioned about them in church growing up and they were never used in liturgy. Thank God I found the Orthodox Church and now see how we’ve impoverished our faith tradition in the West by being ignorant of these scriptures.
BTW, your links to the Orthodox Study Bible don’t seem to be working. You can find it at Conciliar Press.
http://www.conciliarpress.com/books/orthodox-study-bible
The fact that Jesus did not quote from any of the Apocrypha, but did quote from all the other OT books (except Song of Solomon) is one reason that I don’t accept the Apocrypha as inspired.
How about a reference to where Jesus said to write down what he was saying?
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Man, you beat me to it by 10 seconds!
Is this true? When the NT quotes the Hebrew Bible, is the Greek used in the NT identical to the Septuagint, or did they translate directly from the Hebrew?
It’s an overgeneralization. Many quotations are like the Septuagint, others seem to be built directly on Hebrew, and still others’ source text hasn’t been identified yet.
The NT is quoting the Septuagint. The popular OT in use today is based on the Masoretic texts, i.e. a 9th century Jewish canon compiled largely in reaction to Christian claims that the Old Testament Scriptures belonged to the Church. Martin Luther accepted or deleted books, based on a 16th century misunderstanding. When he was translating the Old Testament into German, he mistakenly believed that the oldest source for the Old Testament would be in Hebrew, so he found and used the Masoretic Text. In other words, the true Christian canon (including the “missing books”) had been completed 400 years prior to the Masoretic canon.
It is used between the liturgy of Readings and the liturgy of Holy Baptism/Renewal of Baptismal Promises--the same place as the Litany of the Saints in the Roman rite.
I accept your list of quotes, however, I don’t see them as authoritative. Every quote you listed has a reference in the Protestant-accepted canon.
You may or may not know that many early Roman Catholic church fathers did not accept the Apocrypha.
I read the following about them: (but I have not read their original works so you can correct me if I’m wrong):
“Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.
In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome (the greatest Bible scholar of the early Medieval period) work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books.”
Augustine, a favorite of both the RC and Protestant churches, DID accept the Apocrypha, however.
Well, it’s been a centuries long debate but as you probably know the RC church did not even officially canonize the apocrypha until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. So for the majority of the life of the RC church, it was not especially recognized as authoritative.
Great post. Thanks.
“How about a reference to where Jesus said to write down what he was saying?”
Are you doubting that Jesus wanted the Bible written? Or that he wanted the Gospels written?
I don’t think you’d find any Roman Catholics or Protestants who’d agree with you on that one!
If we believe in the inspiration of Scripture - and we do - and we believe the gospels are inspired - and we do - then we naturally believe God wanted them written. Otherwise He would not have inspired them.
Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 seems to accept the gospel accounts of Jesus as scripture, as he says
-For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethen at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.-
Interesting info BTTT
The apocrypha itself says there was no prophet in the land at the time of its writings.. All scripture is written by a prophet (one who speaks for God ).. So the apocrypha is not inspired scripture..it is as jerome placed it as good spiritual reading but no infallible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.