Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

[BobRyan]

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.

Jerome (author of the Vulgate translation in 405 A.D.) agrees with the first century Jewish historian - Josephus that the Hebrew Bible never included the Apocrypha and as Josephus stated the Hebrew canon had been kept securely in the temple for over 300 years by the first century A.D. and had not changed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

It's not so much who wrote it, but who approved what was written and what authority they had for approving what they did approve.

Jews wrote in Hebrew, and also in Aramaic. To say only Hebrew writings can be canonized is about like saying Jesus only spoke Hebrew. We do think he spoke Aramaic quite often, maybe most of the time. So why not parts of the Bible written in Aramaic. Or for that matter parts of the OT written in Greek. The whole NT was Greek, albeit with perhaps Hebrew or Aramaic precursor texts, so why not a Greek OT? Hint: the Septuagent.

I'm just saying that we can't expect the same folks who rejected Jesus to be the guys who determine which books of the OT we can read and cannot read. By 90 AD they could have (and would have) accessed most of the NT but they found NONE of it acceptable. Why accept their limited canon? The Septuagent canon makes a lot more sense. And it has been shown to actually have been used by Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

It's not so much who wrote it, but who approved what was written

2 Tim 3:15 says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" -- man only writes what God says to write.

The authority is God.

And notice in Luke 24 - Jesus and his followers were not waiting a few hundred years for someone to define the term 'all scripture' for them. They already were using it.

Luke 24:

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures. ...32 They said to one another, “Were our hearts not burning within us when He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

We don't see the much-expected "we don't know what scripture is yet" and nothing like "we don't know what ALL THE SCRIPTURES - even are"

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just saying that we can't expect the same folks who rejected Jesus to be the guys who determine which books of the OT we can read and cannot read.

Not true in the case of John the baptizer.
Not true in the case of Jesus in Luke 24,
Not true in the case of Jesus' disciples in Luke 24.
Not true in the case of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:2, Acts 18:28, Rom 1:2

I think they are pretty good examples to hang out with --- so I am with "them".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jerome (author of the Vulgate translation in 405 A.D.) agrees with the first century Jewish historian - Josephus that the Hebrew Bible never included the Apocrypha and as Josephus stated the Hebrew canon had been kept securely in the temple for over 300 years by the first century A.D. and had not changed.

Saint Jerome was instructed by fifth century Jewish Hebrew scholars so he - unadvisedly - accepted the Jewish biases of that period. His assessment of canonisation for the old testament books was not accepted by the Church. That is why the Church took a different view and landed on a canon of 73 (or more) books.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

It's something to think about. But something else to think about is that the apostles authoring the NT used the Septuagent, which had all of the books. Jesus should have told His apostles to only follow only the Hebrew texts.

The books the Jews finally rejected they rejected because they were too messianic. They would have rejected Isaiah if they could have, but that book was too well established. They rejected every book that made up the NT as well. They knew what they were doing, zeroing out the Essenes and the Sadducees to boot, establishing Pharisee approved texts as the only way to keep the Israelite religion.

We Christians are not Pharisees, and the Pharisees ended up excluding Christians from the Synagogues. That's what happened in and around Jamnia somewhere around 90 AD. Their canon was fixed against Christians.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Jerome (author of the Vulgate translation in 405 A.D.) agrees with the first century Jewish historian - Josephus that the Hebrew Bible never included the Apocrypha and as Josephus stated the Hebrew canon had been kept securely in the temple for over 300 years by the first century A.D. and had not changed.

Jerome initially accepted the Jewish canon out of respect for his Jewish language teachers. But then he ended up accepting the fuller canon. You have to look at the whole of Jerome's work, and not one moment in his history.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not true in the case of John the baptizer.
Not true in the case of Jesus in Luke 24,
Not true in the case of Jesus' disciples in Luke 24.

What are you saying is 'not true'?

I think they are pretty good examples to hang out with --- I am with "them".

Them? Who? John and Jesus and his disciples? I'm with them too. But how do you think you are with them in a way I am not?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just saying that we can't expect the same folks who rejected Jesus to be the guys who determine which books of the OT we can read and cannot read.

Not true in the case of John the baptizer.
Not true in the case of Jesus in Luke 24,
Not true in the case of Jesus' disciples in Luke 24.
Not true in the case of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:2, Acts 18:28, Rom 1:2

I think they are pretty good examples to hang out with --- so I am with "them".

What are you saying is 'not true'?

It is "not true" that NT saints were unwilling to accept as "scriptures" that which the Jews of their day called "scriptures".

It is "not true" that the Bible shows them as waiting a few centuries for a more catholic symposium/council to convene so they could be informed as to what the term "all the scriptures" means when it comes to the OT.

Them? Who? John and Jesus and his disciples?

yes you are correct -- and also Paul as the text above show them all referencing "the scriptures" using the definition that the Jews also accepted for that same term. We see it again in Acts 17:11 - where "the scriptures" is a term that even non-Christian Bible students understood and accepted.

 

[Erose]

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.

Jamnia is a myth created by a Protestant history apologist, that for some reason gained popular acceptance. There is zero evidence from the historical records of this fictitious council. One would think if Jamnia did occur, it would have been at least referred to in the Jew Talmuds or maybe in Josephus' writings. Yet silence.

 

[Erose]

"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.” "​

I want to clear something up here. The term Deuterocanon is NOT a historical reference to the books in our Bible that are contested by Protestants. This term was first used by a Catholic apologist a few hundred years ago for the specific purpose of differentiating these books when debating Protestants.

In the view of the Catholic Faith, the books referred to the Deuterocanon are on the same level of acceptance and authority as the rest of the Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

In the view of the Catholic Faith, the books referred to the Deuterocanon are on the same level of acceptance and authority as the rest of the Old Testament.

As far as I can see - I have been saying that the statement above is the Catholic view in all my posts here.

 

[BobRyan]

Jerome initially accepted the Jewish canon out of respect for his Jewish language teachers. But then he ended up accepting the fuller canon. You have to look at the whole of Jerome's work, and not one moment in his history.

In "Jerome's work" includes his published Vulgate so we also have his prologues for each of the apocryphal books informing the reader that the apocryphal book in view is not actually a part of the Hebrew canon.

 

[BobRyan]

Saint Jerome was instructed by fifth century Jewish Hebrew scholars

The result is that he understood the Hebrew canon and most of his Catholic peers did not. So he knew what was and was not OT... hence his prologues.

 

[Erose]

Jerome (author of the Vulgate translation in 405 A.D.) agrees with the first century Jewish historian - Josephus that the Hebrew Bible never included the Apocrypha and as Josephus stated the Hebrew canon had been kept securely in the temple for over 300 years by the first century A.D. and had not changed.

A couple of things there: 1) As someone already pointed out the Jews did not have a biblical canon that was universally accepted by all Jews at the time of our Lord's crucifixion. The Sadducees and Samaritans only accepted the Torah, that is why they rejected the idea of the resurrection. The Essenes as we well know from the dead sea scrolls had a huge canon of Scripture. The Greek Speaking Jews used the Greek translations found in the Septuagint as their canon. And the Pharisees, had a canon that was more or less what the Hebrew Bible today has, albeit there seems to be debate on the acceptance and rejection of some, i.e. Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, both of which were more often than not included in the Scrolls of the Prophecies of Jeremiah, Sirach, Jubilees among others. These writings moved in and out of the accepted canon probably up to the 5th century, maybe later.

 

[BobRyan]

A couple of things there: 1) As someone already pointed out the Jews did not have a biblical canon

as I pointed out - Josephus does not argue "I myself view the Hebrew canon as fixed and unchanged for 300+ years" -- rather he points out the historic fact that the Hebrew canon had been kept in the temple unchanged for that length of time.

I don't know of a single scholar even today that argues that the Jews were keeping the Apocrypha in the temple in Jerusalem along with the Hebrew Bible as "scripture".

the Pharisees, had a canon that was more or less what the Hebrew Bible today has,

In Matt 22 we see that Jesus sided with the Pharisees.

In Acts 23:6 - Paul declares that even so many years after accepting Christ "I AM a Pharisee" and the Pharisee's response to him was "we find no fault with this man".

This is consistent with the NT references to "scripture" where the Jews and the Christians are using terms like "scripture" and "all of scripture".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The result is that he understood the Hebrew canon and most of his Catholic peers did not. So he knew what was and was not OT... hence his prologues.

The result was that he was instructed to include all of the 73 canonical books in his translation.

 

[Arctangent]

"Inspired" wasn't a category of books to the ancient Jews. And in the sense the people tend to use it today, it wasn't a category to the earliest Christians either.

"Apocrypha" was a category of book, but not in the sense that many imagine today. It didn't mean "hidden" per se. It meant "private" (which is loosely related to the idea of "hidden"), and referred to books in the "second" category of church use, and referred to books which are fit to be read privately in people's homes, but which were not part of the lexionary of books read publicly in the churches.

So, for example, Tobit is not an "apocryphal" book in the Orthodox Church, as we read from it publicly in our wedding service, although 1 Maccabbees is, since we never read it publicly in any of our services.

People make far too much of the category of "alocrypha" and over-define it.

There was no single "Jewish canon". The Jews were spread out geographically, and different canons existed in different regions. Judea was certainly influential, but even amongst the leading sects in Judea there were AT LEAST two different canons, at a minimum. Ancient Judaism wasn't monolithic, and didn't begin to become monolithic until after the Apostolic era and the destruction of Jerusalem, and even that process of becoming monolithic took centuries.

 

[Erose]

In "Jerome's work" includes his published Vulgate so we also have his prologues for each of the apocryphal books informing the reader that the apocryphal book in view is not actually a part of the Hebrew canon.

The history of the Vulgate is quote complicated, and to be honest although we have the majority of Jerome's translations from Hebrew, we do not have all of them. For instance, the book of Psalms is St. Jerome's translation of the Greek instead of the Hebrew. His Hebrew or Aramaic translation was destroyed in a fire caused by Pelagian heretics in Palestine.

Also concerning the canon, as far as I know St. Jerome never listed what he believed OT canon should be. He speaks of the 24books of the OT, though in his preface to the commentary of Ecclesiastes. Anyway St. Jerome's position was that the Hebrew or Aramaic was more accurate in his opinion than the Greek.

 

[Erose]

as I pointed out - Josephus does not argue "I myself view the Hebrew canon as fixed and unchanged for 300+ years" -- rather he points out the historic fact that the Hebrew canon had been kept in the temple unchanged for that length of time.

I don't know of a single scholar even today that argues that the Jews were keeping the Apocrypha in the temple in Jerusalem along with the Hebrew Bible as "scripture".

Are you saying that the Hebrew Scrolls were kept in the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans as prophesied by Jesus? That Temple? You don't know what was contained in those Scrolls to be honest with you especially considering A) The Sadducees may have only kept the Torah in the Temple Tabernacle. B) It is a proven fact that the Scrolls usually contained more writings than just the one it is called after. For example the Scrolls of Jeremiah usually included Baruch and/or the Letter of Jeremiah, just as an example.

Josephus if I remember correctly refers to the 22 scrolls of Scripture, since the Jews at that time in Palestine were still using Scrolls not Codexes.

In Matt 22 we see that Jesus sided with the Pharisees.

In Acts 23:6 - Paul declares that even so many years after accepting Christ "I AM a Pharisee" and the Pharisee's response to him was "we find no fault with this man".

What does that have to do with what is being discussed. Jesus sided with anyone who spoke the truth, but as we all know Jesus didn't side with the Pharisees on everything, now did He?

This is consistent with the NT references to "scripture" where the Jews and the Christians are using terms like "scripture" and "all of scripture".

Bob, even Protestant scholars no longer toe that line any longer. You need to look up a list of quotes and/or references from these Sacred books. There are some on line I would imagine.