Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

[The Liturgist]

Well they got this one bishop who is really eccentric in the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East that has an entire series on the book on You-tube. He is eccentric because he likes to do thinks like wear an headdress the head covering that you find in OO churches, and fondly quote Roman Catholic saints and stories etc. If I didn't know better I would suspect he was really trying to promote ecumenical relations across jurisdictional lines.

If they are being true to form they will be covering it a lot with a historical grammatical method. Even though the above bishop will throw in lots of symbolic stuff as well. I seem to recall watching this bishop before years back when he came up in my suggested videos and watching everything I could of him in English because being a token Assyrian Church aka one that had their "Apostolic Lines", liturgy, etc. but nobody was ethnic or spoke or read Aramaic and East Syriac I did not really have much feel for what the Church really historically taught beyond reading certain classics like Mar Odisho's "The Pearl".

So he was interesting, but not really typical. I can tell because not only was he in the spliter body of a Church Communion that was small to begin with (ACE in total were already less than a million world wide for decades, probably half a million), but he had some kind of falling out with the ancient Assyrians in Australia, and he seems to almost be autocephalous (not to surprising since he is not a person to go out of his way to tow the party line on things, not to mention him doing things like wearing garb of his other Syriac brothers).


I notice the "local" Assyrians (where I use to be from in Silicon Valley) got Revelation or a study of it on their web site.

Assyrian Church of the East - Mar Yosip Parish


New Testament in Assyrian - Revelation

I was told Mar Mari Emmanuel is schismatic, and I think he was with the Syriac Orthodox Church previously and not the Assyrian. He looks more Suroye (West Syriac) than Assyrian, although some Assyrians and some Suroye are indistinguishable, and there has been some intermarriage, and the two ethnic groups are closely related. For example, Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, had the Suroye look.

 

[The Liturgist]

I thought 2/3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, while originally absent, were added to the Peshitta later and are in modern printings? Was I wrong?

No, you are correct; they were added by the Syriac Orthodox from Philoxenus in the 6th century and some are in the Syriac Orthodox Canon, and by Lamsa, as @Pavel Mosko said, in some of his editions, to try to make his case of Peshitta Primacy.

I can’t believe we are discussing Syriac churches for once. This is amazing. Since I joined I have not seen @SteveCaruso post.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I was told Mar Mari Emmanuel is schismatic, and I think he was with the Syriac Orthodox Church previously and not the Assyrian. He looks more Suroye (West Syriac) than Assyrian, although some Assyrians and some Suroye are indistinguishable, and there has been some intermarriage, and the two ethnic groups are closely related. For example, Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, had the Suroye look.

I'm no expert, but I recall it is Ancient Assyrian Church of the East, and mostly that from Australia. The Antioch headgear is one of these curiosities, never heard anything definite on why just various plausible speculation. I mostly also paid attention to this stuff because my best friend, and former Assyrian Church of the East group saw that Church, as "their Church", and had nasty stuff to say about Mar Dinkah and the assassination of Mar Shimun.


I also did watch his You-tube channel for a bit, and even left some comments talking to one of his staffers. It was nice to get a few little tid bits like the Assyrian habit of saying "ashes" or "ashes on your head" as an idiom for "for shame!" little stuff like that I tried to absorb since I did not get to around many Assyrians or Chaldeans other than occasionally bumping into them while going to restaurants of the region where they might be your waiter or waitress in Campbell California especially with the Chaldean church in the region.

Mar Mari Emmanuel - Wikipedia

 

[Pavel Mosko]

No, you are correct; they were added by the Syriac Orthodox from Philoxenus in the 6th century and some are in the Syriac Orthodox Canon, and by Lamsa, as @Pavel Mosko said, in some of his editions, to try to make his case of Peshitta Primacy.

Yeah that right, didn't they change their script to differentiate their texts? You got one script called Estrangelo, the western one I think because it ends with an o.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

No, you are correct; they were added by the Syriac Orthodox from Philoxenus in the 6th century

That is the Harkelean that was a translation of the Greek where they directly brought it into Syriac right? That was a source of much talk from Lamsa and Paul Younan on Peshitta.org. Like a proof of why there were so into Aramaic primacy, because that version follows Greek word order and syntax etc.


Incidentally in 2002-2014 I was posting at places like Peshitta.org, Orthodox Christianity.net, and Catholic Answers and many other places under the avatar name of Addai, which was short, sweet, distinctive and strangely not taken! If not for wanting to try to get some online ministry stuff going since 2015, probably would have kept up that tradition here.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeah that right, didn't they change their script to differentiate their texts? You got one script called Estrangelo, the western one I think because it ends with an o.

Estrangelo and Estrangela are identical. Classical Syriac is written in the same one. It is true however that vernacular Assyrian Eastern Neo-Aramaic is written in a different script than the vernacular West Syriac dialects like Turoyo are written in, but this is dialectical and not due to ecclesiastical politics. Indeed priests and other ecclesiastics of the two churches who understand Classical Syriac can understand those from the other, but West Syriac speakers have an accent that one East Syriac speaking priest told me he finds annoying, due to the suppression of two of the seven vowells in the Western accent and dialects (thus Mar becomes Mor, Suraya becomes Suroyo, et cetera becomes et cetero (not really, that last one was a stupid joke). Because I’ve spent slightly more time visiting Syriac Orthodox than Assyrian churches I tend to speak Syriac with a Western accent, which is appropriate because I’m a Westerner, not one of those big city folks from back East with their fancy seven vowels and skyscrapers and high speed trains and Michelin starred restaurants at every street corner…

 

[The Liturgist]

That is the Harkelean that was a translation of the Greek where they directly brought it into Syriac right?

The Harklean is a different translation, but all Syriac scripture is translated from the Greek, even if Aramaic Primacy were to be the case (which is not, except in the case of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites, which were more likely composed in Judean Aramaic than Hebrew, since even some parts of the Old Testament like the book of Daniel are in an older Aramaic Dialect, and Hebrew since the Babylonean Captivity has been written in a 22-letter subset of the Imperial Aramaic alphabet.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, one reason I think the Rabinnical Jews insisted on a 22 book Old Testament canon is because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

On another note I am sick today with a severe stomach upset, food poisoning I think, and can’t celebrate morning prayer or the liturgy so please pray for me.

 

[Andrewn]

the reading is very popular in the Coptic churches, and it would give people something to do between the Vesperal Divine Liturgy in the morning and the Paschal Liturgy which is traditionally at midnight

In Coptic churches, reading the Apocalypse takes place early Saturday during the night (between 6 pm and 6 am) before the morning of Holy Saturday.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In Coptic churches, reading the Apocalypse takes place early Saturday during the night (between 6 pm and 6 am) before the morning of Holy Saturday.

Yeah my best friend had an interesting insight when I told him about that. He related it to the warning at the end of the book to not "Add or subtract from it". It also interesting that this way of being exposed to the book would have been the same thing that the very 1st Christians would have been exposed to it, as well as those Christians for the first 200-300 years or so.

 

[Andrewn]

Yeah my best friend had an interesting insight when I told him about that. He related it to the warning at the end of the book to not "Add or subtract from it".

Sorry, I don't understand what your friend means.

It also interesting that this way of being exposed to the book would have been the same thing that the very 1st Christians would have been exposed to it, as well as those Christians for the first 200-300 years or so.

I thought the reason it was read during the night was so that kids would not attend.

It must be freaky to read about the monsters in the book during the night.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In the context of the curse people in the early days would be afraid to only quote a few verses or a chapter of the text, because it might be "subtracting from the message", albeit not permeantly.


“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18–19.)



Deuteronomy 4:2
New International Version

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

 

[Andrewn]

In the context of the curse people in the early days would be afraid to only quote a few verses or a chapter of the text, because it might be "subtracting from the message", albeit not permeantly.

I knew about the verse at the end of Revelation but not that people would apply it to reading a part of the book.

But, since the book is read during the night, how about people falling asleep: Would nodding off and not hearing a portion of the book being read be considered subtracting from it?

How about if one reads the book at home over several days?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How about if one reads the book at home over several days?

Well at the time you are dealing with a situation where there was only one copy of a book for a given area, and not everybody could read etc. so you got one chance a year to hear it. This is reminiscent of earlier times in Israel, like Mount Sinai, and I believe there is a passage in one of the books mandating that Law be read once a year, or once every so many years for the people


Deuteronomy 31:

11when all Israel comes before the LORD your God at the place He will choose, you are to read this law in the hearing of all Israel. 12Assemble the people—men, women, children, and the foreigners within your gates—so that they may listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and to follow carefully all the words of this law.…

 

[Erose]

Your post was generally correct though, and the points I raised are not well known. I mean, I did not expect you to know that, and I did not mean to come across as patronizing. I also did not want to appear to be disagreeing with your argument, which was substantially correct. You are someone I admire and respect. God bless you!

No you were good to go. That is what we are here for is to learn and grow. Just didn't have any other response, so I was being cheeky. Thanks for the kind comments.

 

[Erose]

The following is a list of the Deuterocanonical books in the Coptic Church. It doesn't include Psa 151. You can click the link for the Prayer of Manaseah:

Comparative Theology Articles & Deuterocanonical Books – St. Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church (Home)

Thanks for the link.

I believe the Orthodox view is that the OT is subordinated to the New. IOW, it is not as infallible as the NT. This produces significant doctrinal differences when compared to Protestants who believe the OT is completely and literally infallible. For the Orthodox, liturgical prayers and writings of the saints may actually have more doctrinal weight than the OT. This is my impression.

Again it it much more complicated than that. There are different levels on canonicity (if that is the right word to use here, maybe inspiration would be better I don't know. Maybe an EO or OO Christian can correct us on that. Here is a link to a very interesting article on the matter: Classification of the books of the Holy Bible

Anyway, for Catholics there are also different levels (again not sure if this is the right word to use) of writings within the Bible. The 4 Gospels come first, then the rest of the NT writings and then the OT writings.

Need to be pointed out here again that the term "deuterocanonical" is not in itself a Catholic term historically. It is really an apologetic term that was made to argue against Protestants concerning these specific books, so that the term Apocrypha wasn't used. Sadly the term has become ingrained in the Catholic understanding of Scripture. But there is no "second canon" in the Catholic OT. You just have the OT.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for the link.

Again it it much more complicated than that. There are different levels on canonicity (if that is the right word to use here, maybe inspiration would be better I don't know. Maybe an EO or OO Christian can correct us on that. Here is a link to a very interesting article on the matter: Classification of the books of the Holy Bible

Anyway, for Catholics there are also different levels (again not sure if this is the right word to use) of writings within the Bible. The 4 Gospels come first, then the rest of the NT writings and then the OT writings.

Need to be pointed out here again that the term "deuterocanonical" is not in itself a Catholic term historically. It is really an apologetic term that was made to argue against Protestants concerning these specific books, so that the term Apocrypha wasn't used. Sadly the term has become ingrained in the Catholic understanding of Scripture. But there is no "second canon" in the Catholic OT. You just have the OT.

Curiously, several years ago I went to a prominent Catholic website to download a copy of the books in question here. I was quite surprised to find none of them listed on the website and the book of Colossians misspelled. I contacted the website and they had been quite unaware of the existence of the missing books, much less their canonicity in the Catholic Church. I came away thinking that these books are probably as significant to the average Catholic in the pew as they are to the average Protestant in the pew.

Personal Bible reading is not a very significant practice for most Catholics. Saying Rosaries, Hail Marys, and Our Fathers are much more relevant IMO for most Catholics.

 

[Erose]

Curiously, several years ago I went to a prominent Catholic website to download a copy of the books in question here. I was quite surprised to find none of them listed on the website and the book of Colossians misspelled. I contacted the website and they had been quite unaware of the existence of the missing books, much less their canonicity in the Catholic Church. I came away thinking that these books are probably as significant to the average Catholic in the pew as they are to the average Protestant in the pew.

Personal Bible reading is not a very significant practice for most Catholics. Saying Rosaries, Hail Marys, and Our Fathers are much more relevant IMO for most Catholics.

I think that the members of the Catholic Church fall in the same range as you find in every single church group out there. You have some that care about learning what the Church teaches and tries to educate themselves, but this group of Christians is probably not a large percentage of any church IMO.

In all reality, it is your relationship with Jesus that is the most important part, not how much of the Bible or Catechism you can recite from heart. This stuff here that we are discussing only matters to us nerds anyway.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that the members of the Catholic Church fall in the same range as you find in every single church group out there. You have some that care about learning what the Church teaches and tries to educate themselves, but this group of Christians is probably not a large percentage of any church IMO.

In all reality, it is your relationship with Jesus that is the most important part, not how much of the Bible or Catechism you can recite from heart. This stuff here that we are discussing only matters to us nerds anyway.

I agree entirely. Thanks!

 

[BobRyan]

At the risk of getting this thread back on topic...

Certainly "knowing every Jew alive on planet earth" was never a criteria to be an accurate Jewish historian. Hopefully we both agree with that.

Josephus made no statement of the form "every Jew alive on planet earth today agrees to some statement xyz and so I am reporting that".

Rather his statement was of the form "This is exactly the scriptures that have been kept in the temple in Jerusalem - and preserved for over 300 years - with nothing added to it in all that time".

Ok -- so then how nice that Josephus makes no statement of the form "no Jew on planet Earth reads anything other than the Hebrew scriptures that have been preserved and unchanged in the Temple in Jerusalem for over 300 years".

Well, maybe that’s true, but if it id, it suggests a recension happened, because 72 Jews famously translated the Septuagint and while some of the Deuterocanonicals post dated them (specifically Wisdom), others likely did not, particularly since we have found Hebrew translations amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I know of no historian claiming that the Septuagint along with the Hebrew bible were both being preserved as the scripture standard - by Jews of Christ's day.

Rather it looks more like Josephus' claim was correct - as first century Jewish historian. The Hebrew Bible had not been changed in over 300 years as of the writing of his text.

But whether or not the works were kept in the Temple, and frankly, I would be very surprised if the Temple lacked Hebrew versions of at least some of the Deuterocanonicals

Ok so we have an actual first century Jewish historian making a publically documented statement regarding the Hebrew Bible - and can compare that two your 21st century "surprise" that his statement is correct.

the New Testament, being written in Greek, quotes it, as well as books prominently quoted in our New Testament

True - but the New Testament is not part of the Hebrew Bible or any Bible that the Jews would have considered scripture - and Josephus was not talking about Christian NT texts.

And if this happened, it would have been gradual and would not have initially involved the Hellenic Jews, who over time either converted to Christianity or became Romaniote Jews

"others likely...and IF this happened..." - "it would have been gradual...and it probably did not involve the Sadducees either" sounds like a train of speculation.

Josephus was making a statement about what was considered historic fact - that the Hebrew Bible was unchanged for over 300 years at the time of his writing in the first century.

It has been a typical thing for protestants to change whatever they don't like so dropping the Apocrypha is standard practice for a group of denominations that make their own way through scripture without the guidance of the Holy Mother Church who approved the books of the New and Old Testaments.

Protestants do what feels good instead of following the teachings of the Church.

correction - Josephus was not a "Protestant" - he was a first century Jewish historian. He reminds his readers that the Hebrew Bible as of the first century had not been changed at all for over 300 years. But was being preserved just as it was - in Jewish temple.

To be clear, I was not in my post addressing whether or not they retained the Deuterocanonicals. There are specific historic reasons why most of the reformers had a negative view of them and it largely amounted to St. Jerome, who in translating the Vulgate from the Hebrew and Aramaic, felt those books which were only in Greek (as far as he knew - the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran Caves was at the unknown) were inferior (he also translated a Psalter from the Hebraic text, but at the request of the Pope also translated a Psalter from the Septuagint, because the Roman church read the Psalms in a manner similar to the Greek church and the alternate arrangement of the Hebraic Psalter creates a problem with liturgical compatibility, and the Septuagint Psalter is what you find in most Vulgates and the Douai Rheims.

However, his idea about the superiority of Hebrew and Aramaic sources prompted the Protestants, and interestingly, the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century when commissioning what is known as the “Synodal Bible” in vernacular Russian for personal use, to use the Masoretic Text as a source.

More to the point - he could actually read Hebrew and knew that the Apocrypha was never a part of the Hebrew Bible. So also did first century Jewish historians like Josephus know that same thing. So in his prologues to apocryphal books in the Vulgate he noted that they do not belong to the canon of scripture.

Why were some books removed from the Bible and is it a sin to read them?.
"he (Jerome) specified that the books that had been translated from Greek, rather than from Hebrew, are “set aside among the apocrypha” (inter apocrifa seponendum) and “are not in the canon” (non sunt in canone)."