Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

[BobRyan]

A number of non-traditionalist denominations such as SDAs, Baptists, most Presbyterian, all Methodists, evangelicals etc - do not accept the Apocrypha as "scripture" and so have an even wider "intertestimental period" then the approx. 100 year gap that the traditionalist admit to. That is fine with me because the non-traditionalist group are the ones I run into the most my area of the USA. So I am not bothered by being in what Christianity Today called the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - that sides with the evangelical groups in agreeing on the "wider gap" in intertestimental period.

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"The United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations, do not recognize the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. But they do allow apocryphal books to be read aloud ..."​

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),” according to Britannica.​

 

[BobRyan]

Some people claim that "1 Thessalonians, written around 50 A.D." was the first NT book written. If you know of a "traditional church" claiming no gap between OT and NT - then I would have to assume they believe one of the non-NT books was written in 49 A.D. What book would that be? And why wouldn't it be Christians that are writing scripture in 49 A.D.? Why would it be non-Christian Jews writing scripture in 49 A.D.

someone else here has said --
To my knowledge the most recent Old Testament book is Wisdom, which was composed as recently as 60 BC

Ok so then even in the view you propose that is about a 100 year gap between what some traditionalists call the OT and what we all call the NT.

 

[BobRyan]

Some have said:
.. these books, which were historically part of the King James Version, were omitted by printers starting in the late 18th century, because while the Church of England used them extensively, the Church of Scotland and most of the non-conforming Protestant churches (such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Unitarians, as well as most Congregationalists) did not, and the latter formed a majority in North America.

from: History of the “Apocrypha” — Classical Christianity.

“Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s!"
​

Those groups that believe Apocryphal books are not part of scripture - call them "the Apocrypha" in those Bibles that include it... and those who believe they are part of scripture call them "deuterocanonical".

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"Those who don’t accept these books as canon call them the Apocrypha apocryphal. But those who do accept them call them the Deuterocanon or deuterocanonical books, meaning “belonging to the second canon.” "​

 

[HTacianas]

A number of non-traditionalist denominations such as SDAs, Baptists, most Presbyterian, all Methodists, evangelicals etc - do not accept the Apocrypha as "scripture" and so have an even wider "intertestimental period" then the approx. 100 year gap that the traditionalist admit to. That is fine with me because the non-traditionalist group are the ones I run into the most my area of the USA. So I am not bothered by being in what Christianity Today called the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - that sides with the evangelical groups in agreeing on the "wider gap" in intertestimental period.

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"The United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations, do not recognize the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. But they do allow apocryphal books to be read aloud ..."​

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),” according to Britannica.​

Trivia question: What does the canonical New Testament refer to "non-Hellenistic Jewish Scholarship" of 90 AD as?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

For things that are not suppose to be inspired and authoritative.... they sure are quoted and cited by both Jesus and the apostles.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

 

[Pavel Mosko]

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

That really is mistaken there was no official decision on Canonization until the Talmudic counsel of Jamnia. Just look at places where the Essenes lived and check out their scroll collections.


The Jews had 3 different view of the canon based on who you were talking to the Sadducees (only the Torah), Pharisees or Essenes. The Pharisees view is closer to the Talmudic "Orthodox" view of the canon but during the Second Temple time it was not unanimous, a number of Pharisees considered certain books like 1st Maccabees as inspired.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

from wikipedia
"Sirach provides evidence of a collection of sacred scriptures similar to portions of the Hebrew Bible. The book, which dates from 180 BCE (and is not included in the Jewish canon), includes a list of names of biblical figures (44–49) in the same order as is found in the Torah and the Nevi'im (Prophets), and which includes the names of some men mentioned in the Ketuvim (Writings). Based on this list of names, some scholars have conjectured that the author, Yeshua ben Sira, had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets.[4]

His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther and Daniel, suggesting that people mentioned in these works did not fit the criteria of his current listing of great men,[5] or that he did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira's work, his grandson, dated at 132 BCE, mentions both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi'im), as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim (the prologue simply identifies "the rest of the books").[6]"

Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia

 

[chevyontheriver]

A number of non-traditionalist denominations such as SDAs, Baptists, most Presbyterian, all Methodists, evangelicals etc - do not accept the Apocrypha as "scripture" and so have an even wider "intertestimental period" then the approx. 100 year gap that the traditionalist admit to. That is fine with me because the non-traditionalist group are the ones I run into the most my area of the USA. So I am not bothered by being in what Christianity Today called the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - that sides with the evangelical groups in agreeing on the "wider gap" in intertestimental period.

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"The United Methodist Church The United Methodist Church, like most other Protestant denominations, do not recognize the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. But they do allow apocryphal books to be read aloud ..."​

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),” according to Britannica.​

You do realize that when we allow the Jewish authorities to set the canon that they excluded the WHOLE of the New Testament. Let that soak in a moment. The canon for Christians should be set by Christians listening to the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Not by people who have rejected Jesus and have a bias against the existence of the Church Jesus founded.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That really is mistaken there was no official decision on Canonization until the Talmudic counsel of Jamnia. Just look at places where the Essenes lived and check out their scroll collections.


The Jews had 3 different view of the canon based on who you were talking to the Sadducees (only the Torah), Pharisees or Essenes. The Pharisees view is closer to the Talmudic "Orthodox" view of the canon but during the Second Temple time it was not unanimous, a number of Pharisees considered certain books like 1st Maccabees as inspired.

People argue about whether there was an actual ‘council of Jamnia’. It seems to be presumed without actual evidence. About that time some Jews decided on a canon to the exclusion of other Jews, including all Christians.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

People argue about whether there was an actual ‘council of Jamnia’. It seems to be presumed without actual evidence. About that time some Jews decided on a canon to the exclusion of other Jews, including all Christians.

I guess I tend to believe the general Jewish Tradition / History on it because it basically jives with the kinds of conciliar attitudes that you see in the Book of Acts, and later Christianity, not to mention the basic Sanhedrin counsel of elders you see in Second Temple Judaism, and earlier Jewish customs around the temple and tabernacle, and Moses with his judges.

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...7KVo9baH4Aenku11SyXues8_LfqTcQQhoCA28QAvD_BwE


That place has a lot of history, especially with the Sanhedrin
JABNEH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

I guess I tend to believe the general Jewish Tradition / History on it because it basically jives with the kinds of conciliar attitudes that you see in the Book of Acts, and later Christianity, not to mention the basic Sanhedrin counsel of elders you see in Second Temple Judaism, and earlier Jewish customs around the temple and tabernacle, and Moses with his judges.

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...7KVo9baH4Aenku11SyXues8_LfqTcQQhoCA28QAvD_BwE


That place has a lot of history, especially with the Sanhedrin
JABNEH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Maybe.

Whatever happened about this time the Essenes and the Sadducees began to lose influence and the Christians were excluded. It was a defining period in Israelite religion whether it happened one week in 90 AD or over decades.

 

[Skye1300]

You do realize that when we allow the Jewish authorities to set the canon that they excluded the WHOLE of the New Testament. Let that soak in a moment. The canon for Christians should be set by Christians listening to the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Not by people who have rejected Jesus and have a bias against the existence of the Church Jesus founded.

Exactly!! That's why rejecting those books makes no sense.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Exactly!! That's why rejecting those books makes no sense.

Its really interesting that certain scholarly Protestants that are also devout like Semanticist Michael Heiser are actually rejecting and correcting some of these views. Which is cool because long ago before I ran across him I was saying the same kind of thing in regards to certain arbitrary Protestant views on "inspiration". Basically on the "inspiration list" you got this list of various different types of genre books, including history books. A number of views on inspiration seem to propose some kind of "Thus Sayeth The Lord" type inspiration for all the books of the Bible, including those history books.
Which ends up being a kind of false analogy, because we know those writers were not following something like prophetic inspiration like a prophet like Isaiah, but rather doing their best to document what happened historically from what they saw, from interviewing witnesses or transcribing the testimony of other witnesses of that time or event. And so you basically have Protestants accepting the history books of the earlier times of Israel, while rejecting the newer ones like 1st Maccabees which in some ways are more detailed or at least have a more recent and detailed supporting oral tradition behind them.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

A nice little video from the forementioned scholar.

 

[Athanasius377]

from: History of the “Apocrypha” — Classical Christianity.

“Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s!"
​

Those groups that believe Apocryphal books are not part of scripture - call them "the Apocrypha" in those Bibles that include it... and those who believe they are part of scripture call them "deuterocanonical".

from: What Is the Apocrypha? Are Apocryphal Books Really Scripture?.

"Those who don’t accept these books as canon call them the Apocrypha apocryphal. But those who do accept them call them the Deuterocanon or deuterocanonical books, meaning “belonging to the second canon.” "​

Yes, This is true and I have one that use to pray the daily office :



We do not consider the apocrypha scripture but we do read from theses books on occasion. It is my opinion that all christians should read these books because they help fill in the "gap" as you put it. Yet we should be clear that they are not inspired.

 

[BobRyan]

We do not consider the apocrypha scripture but we do read from theses books on occasion. It is my opinion that all christians should read these books because they help fill in the "gap" as you put it. Yet we should be clear that they are not inspired.

Indeed - even the KJV had it as apocrypha rather than inspired.

While the histories and other stories in it many not be actual history - they do teach some good spiritual lessons.

 

[BobRyan]

You do realize that when we allow the Jewish authorities to set the canon that they excluded the WHOLE of the New Testament

Christian Jews wrote the NT.
Non-Christian Jews wrote the OT... in Hebrew.

We would not be asking non-Christian OT Jews to write the Christian NT. I don't think that makes sense. And we would not expect the Apostle Paul to have written the OT.

 

[BobRyan]

That really is mistaken there was no official decision on Canonization until the Talmudic counsel of Jamnia.

Not true according to first century Jewish historian Josephus who pointed out that Jews already had the canonized Hebrew Bible secure in the Temple and had done so for over 300 years -- a time when no changes were made and no new books added.

Even Jerome in his Latin Vulgate of 405A.D. admits in his prologues that the apocryphal books were not accepted as part of the OT canon of scripture. So we have both Christian scholarship and first century Jewish historian agreement on that point.

 

[Athanasius377]

You do realize that when we allow the Jewish authorities to set the canon that they excluded the WHOLE of the New Testament. Let that soak in a moment. The canon for Christians should be set by Christians listening to the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Not by people who have rejected Jesus and have a bias against the existence of the Church Jesus founded.

Then what do you do with Romans 3:1-2?
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Ro 3:1–2). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

I agree that only Christians should be debating the NT canon. That goes for today as well. We don't need the musings of non christian academics deciding what I believe to be foremost theological issue. However, The OT was pretty clearly understood by Jesus's time. The only lingering question was perhaps the inclusion of the Song of Solomon and Esther. This was issue discussed at the school of Jamnia according to Roger Beckwith. But also consider the words of Christ Himself in MATT 23:35:

Therefore, behold, bI am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will cscourge in your synagogues, and dpersecute from city to city,

Matt. 23:35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous aAbel to the blood of Zechariah, the bson of Berechiah, whom cyou murdered between the 1temple and the altar.

The events Jesus describes happen from the first book of the Jewish bible to the last book which is Genesis to 2 chronicles.
So He is saying from the beginning to the end of scripture. . . . . Perhaps He is limiting this to just the prophets. Yet I think there is a strong case Christ is giving us that canon. Something to think about.

A

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"In the third century B.C., Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) into Greek, resulting in the Septuagint. Several books were included in the Septuagint that were not considered divinely inspired by Jews but were included in the Jewish Talmud, which is a supplement, of sorts, or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

“That version incorporated a number of works that later, non-Hellenistic Jewish scholarship at the Council of Jamnia (AD 90) identified as being outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The Talmud separates these works as Sefarim Hizonim (Extraneous Books),”

There was no council of Jamnia. And Judaism at the time of Christ had several lists of holy books - Essene, Sadducee, Pharisee, Zealot, and possibly more.

The Council of Jamnia (presumably Yavneh in the Holy Land) was a council purportedly held late in the 1st century CE to finalize the canon of the Hebrew Bible.[1][2][3] It has also been hypothesized to be the occasion when the Jewish authorities decided to exclude believers in Jesus as the Messiah from synagogue attendance, as referenced by interpretations of John 9:22 in the New Testament.[4] The writing of the Birkat haMinim benediction is attributed to Shmuel ha-Katan at the supposed Council of Jamnia.

The theory of a council of Jamnia that finalized the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[5] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited.[6]
Council of Jamnia​