• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,651
19,679
Flyoverland
✟1,351,566.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
They seem to have copied some previous work, but not all, because to this day there are branches of Christianity, such as the Coptic church, which have considerably different canons. The reality remains that there is no uniformly agreed-upon canon of Christian scripture accepted by all branches of Christianity, unless, of course, one wishes to deny the existence of other branches than the one with which one is affiliated.
The Catholic canon and the Orthodox canons are essentially the same. The Ethiopian canon is different I'll grant you that, but your argument that everybody and their uncle has a different canon so it's all a wash refutes your own canon. I'm happy to stand on a Catholic-Orthodox canon that has stood substantially the same for more than 1500 years. And to not be bound by a canon established by rabbinic rejectors of Jesus trying to eliminate the actual coming of the messiah from the religion of Israel.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,255
13,959
73
✟421,221.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Catholic canon and the Orthodox canons are essentially the same. The Ethiopian canon is different I'll grant you that, but your argument that everybody and their uncle has a different canon so it's all a wash refutes your own canon. I'm happy to stand on a Catholic-Orthodox canon that has stood substantially the same for more than 1500 years. And to not be bound by a canon established by rabbinic rejectors of Jesus trying to eliminate the actual coming of the messiah from the religion of Israel.

I hardly argue "that everybody and their uncle has a different canon so it's all a wash". It might be more of "a wash" in light of the fact that most members of Christian churches are amazingly unfamiliar with the contents of the Bible, although some would defend their compilation of books assiduously.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,651
19,679
Flyoverland
✟1,351,566.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I hardly argue "that everybody and their uncle has a different canon so it's all a wash". It might be more of "a wash" in light of the fact that most members of Christian churches are amazingly unfamiliar with the contents of the Bible, although some would defend their compilation of books assiduously.
Well, I am familiar with the contents of the Bible, having read the whole thing and most parts several times. But you are right that most people can parrot some points for their side pretty well against their enemies.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,255
13,959
73
✟421,221.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Well, I am familiar with the contents of the Bible, having read the whole thing and most parts several times. But you are right that most people can parrot some points for their side pretty well against their enemies.

Not merely that, but they can prop up many commonly-held assumptions which serve to bolster their self-image and personal sense of worth, such as the (in)famous saying, "God helps those who help themselves."
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,464
8,138
50
The Wild West
✟752,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
all Methodists

Not entirely accurate. There are a handful of high church UMC parishes, including one in Tennessee if memory serves, where these are read, and also the Sunday Service book quotes the deuterocanonicals.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,464
8,138
50
The Wild West
✟752,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
“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.​

I have a low opinion of the Council of Jamnia, since it occurred after the schism between Judaism and Christianity, around the same time a malediction against heretics (by which were meant Christians and also Essenes, Beta Israel, followers of St. John the Baptist who did not accept Christ, and probably the Sadducees by that point, since they were marginalized by the Pharisees after the destruction of the Temple) was added to the litany known as Shemoneh Esreh (The Eighteen), which was until the addition of the aforesaid curse, a set of eighteen benedictions present in the Jewish liturgy that probably originated with St. Esdras (Ezra the Priest, who together with the Holy Prophet St. Nehemiah introduced the synagogue system and the reading of the Torah and Haftarah there, and at the Temple, to ensure Torah-literacy, which became the basis for Christian worship). I think some progressive Jewish congregations have dropped the malediction. At any rate, the Council of Jamnia was in all likelihood not aligned with Christian interests, given the period when it was held.

Now, this doesn’t mean we do everything the opposite of how Jamnia says to do it; some reactionary decisions like that have been made in the history of Christianity, some of which have been fine, such as the lack of fasting in Eastern Orthodoxy during the week following Septuagesima, which was a reaction against the Oriental Orthodox tradition of observing a severe fast called The Rogation of the Ninevites, a decision made at the Council of Trullo, or the Roman Catholic reaction to that same Council of Trullo, which they rejected, one canon of which prohibited depicting our Lord as a lamb; the reigning Pope responded by writing the hymn Angus Dei and inserting it into the mass before the Communion. That last move actually resulted in some great liturgical music.

However, Jamnia is obviously not a Christian council, so my view is that we ought to pay no attention to it and not allow it to influence our thinking any more than we use the Talmud for guidance on questions of moral theology or Old Testament exegesis. (Some Christians do enjoy reading the Talmud, and I’m actually one of them, because I find the Haggadah very enjoyable to read and filled with a surprising and clearly deliberate amount of Semitic humor, which is also present in the Old Testament and even in the Gospels; to love Jesus is to love the Jews and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, while I reject it them as religious documents, are most definitely priceless Jewish cultural artifacts; I also have an interest in collecting Judaica, and want to start buying some of the more aesthetically interesting menorahs, etrog holders, and so on, and a dream of mine is to own a Torah scroll, which is also legitimate Christian Scripture.*

But in short, the Council of Jamnia is not relevant and any decisions about the legitimacy of the so-called Deuterocanonical Books, which I regard as Protocanon, specimens of most of which have been found in the Qumran Caves (the Dead Sea Scrolls), should be made by the Christian Church, for the Christian Church, based on what we think these texts say about Jesus Christ. The reason why I regard them as Protocanon is because most of them seem to have a very high density of Christological prophecies, a higher density than in some other OT books. This is also true of the longer versions of Esther and Daniel.

*Perhaps if I could acquire Torah Scrolls which had worn out and were no longer Kosher, which seems unlikely, as usually they are confined to a room set aside for storing such items; indeed at the Old Synagogue in Prague the repository for old Torah scrolls is in the attic, and legend has it the now-inanimate Golem is stored up there, and in a move I would find eerie if I believed in the Golem legend, the staircase to the attic was removed, but I only find it worrisome from a fire safety perspective, since an attic filled with old vellum scrolls and papyri seems like a bad idea).
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,894
Georgia
✟1,091,827.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is not unfamilar with gaps. Genesis to Exodus seems aptly fitting. I see your point here but the Bible shows periods of silence as normative so a gap alone does not demand it to be filled.

I am not arguing against the idea that gaps of time existed between books being written.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,894
Georgia
✟1,091,827.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.​



Not entirely accurate. There are a handful of high church UMC parishes, including one in Tennessee if memory serves, where these are read, and also the Sunday Service book quotes the deuterocanonicals.

My statement was not "the Apocrypha is never read in a Methodist church".

My statement is that they reference them as "apocrypha" - Apocryphal - and not
"deuterocanonicals" -- so if you find "one in Tennessee" let me know if they reference that section as "apocrypha" in their texts or as "scripture" -- in the canon of scripture.

Meanwhile --
United Methodist - Glossary: Apocrypha

where we find this:

"The collective name given to the collection of fifteen books written generally during the period between the writing of the last books of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament. The word apocrypha literally means "things that are hidden." When the canon or official list of books was established for the Jews (the Old Testament) these books were not included. A Greek translation of the Old Testament books, however, known as the Septuagian, which circulated widely in the early Christian church, did include the books. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize these books as authoritative. Protestants have not recognized the books of the Apocrypha as Scripture or authoritative; therefore, they are not included in most Bibles used by Protestants. If the Apocrypha is printed at all, it is as a separate section and is included in recognition of the use made by other groups and for the information it contains concerning the period between those of the Old and New Testaments. Reading from the Apocrypha is now an option in the commonly used lectionaries."​


Methodists are Protestant.
Protestant vs Methodist: What’s the Difference? | Christianity FAQ


====================

interesting note here:
The Apocrypha | Evidence Unseen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,147
5,762
Minnesota
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Correct, I have seen no documentation from the time period about this alleged council of Jamnia.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,147
5,762
Minnesota
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,351
2,317
Perth
✟198,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
History can be difficult, it may or may have not taken place.
It almost certainly never happened, but it was a popular myth among Protestant apologists in the last 30 or so years of the 20th century.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,464
8,138
50
The Wild West
✟752,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
My statement was not "the Apocrypha is never read in a Methodist church".

My statement is that they reference them as "apocrypha" - Apocryphal - and not
"deuterocanonicals" -- so if you find "one in Tennessee" let me know if they reference that section as "apocrypha" in their texts or as "scripture" -- in the canon of scripture.

Meanwhile --
United Methodist - Glossary: Apocrypha

where we find this:

"The collective name given to the collection of fifteen books written generally during the period between the writing of the last books of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament. The word apocrypha literally means "things that are hidden." When the canon or official list of books was established for the Jews (the Old Testament) these books were not included. A Greek translation of the Old Testament books, however, known as the Septuagian, which circulated widely in the early Christian church, did include the books. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize these books as authoritative. Protestants have not recognized the books of the Apocrypha as Scripture or authoritative; therefore, they are not included in most Bibles used by Protestants. If the Apocrypha is printed at all, it is as a separate section and is included in recognition of the use made by other groups and for the information it contains concerning the period between those of the Old and New Testaments. Reading from the Apocrypha is now an option in the commonly used lectionaries."​


Methodists are Protestant.
Protestant vs Methodist: What’s the Difference? | Christianity FAQ


====================

interesting note here:
The Apocrypha | Evidence Unseen.

Indeed, but the United Methodist Glossary is spectacularly inaccurate on this point, unless they decided that the Episcopal Church USA and the Continuing Anglican Churches are not Protestant (remember, the 39 Articles of Religion are no longer in effect in the Episcopal Church or most Continuing Anglican churches). Also, John Calvin regarded Baruch as Protocanonical, and he was possibly more Protestant than John Wesley.

The above not withstanding, I would note that it was absolutely presumptuous of the UMC website to speak on behalf of all Protestants.

For example, I am, at present, a Congregationalist Protestant minister, and a Wesleyan, and I preach the books of the Deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint as Protocanonical, regard the shorter version of Esther as missing essential material, and agree with Martin Luther and St. Athanasius concerning it, but not the longer version, which I regard as Protocanonical, and additionally, I regard the additional books in the Ethiopian Narrow Canon like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and the Syriac Psalms 152-155 as deuterocanonical, and I include Psalms 151-155 in some of our worship services (Psalm 151 is from the Septuagint and I regard it as Protocanon).
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Basically, OT is the testimonies of the Jews. OT Canon belongs to the Jews in a sense. Jewish OT Canon up to Jesus' days is legitimate. It is authenticated to be enforced by the Pharisees. It doesn't include the books in Apocrypha.

While NT is the testimonies of the Apostles. Its Canon belongs to Christians.

As of today,
The Jews have the correct OT Canon.
The Catholics have the correct NT Canon, but not the OT Canon.
The Protestants have both a correct NT and a correct OT Canon.

Christianity was established and authenticated when the Pharisees failed to play the role. Similarly, Protestants are authenticated when the Catholics fail to play their role.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,255
13,959
73
✟421,221.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It almost certainly never happened, but it was a popular myth among Protestant apologists in the last 30 or so years of the 20th century.

It also seems to be quite popular with Catholics here at CF. I had never heard of it until I ran across various posts from Catholics defending the deutercanonical books by dismissing the canon established by Jews at the alleged Council of Jamnia.

The fact remains that the Jewish canon does not include the deutercanonical books. It probably has no more relevance to Christianity than the canon of Islam (which was hotly debated for quite a lengthy period). By that, I mean that Islam also includes the Bible (Injil) in its canon of scriptures. Whether or not Islam embraces deutercanonical books is of no relevance to Jews or Christians.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,113
3,436
✟991,309.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am not arguing against the idea that gaps of time existed between books being written.
It seems you're motivated to fill the gap between the OT and NT simply because there is a gap. My point is that throughout biblical timelines gaps are consistent especially when there is a major change. Perhaps a gap alone is not enough to seek to fill it and something of greater substance needs to be the driving motivation.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,113
3,436
✟991,309.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It also seems to be quite popular with Catholics here at CF. I had never heard of it until I ran across various posts from Catholics defending the deutercanonical books by dismissing the canon established by Jews at the alleged Council of Jamnia.

The fact remains that the Jewish canon does not include the deutercanonical books. It probably has no more relevance to Christianity than the canon of Islam (which was hotly debated for quite a lengthy period). By that, I mean that Islam also includes the Bible (Injil) in its canon of scriptures. Whether or not Islam embraces deutercanonical books is of no relevance to Jews or Christians.
Islam teaches that the Tawrat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) are the same messages of the Quran and Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in Arabic "the book" is al-Kitab which literally means "the book" so there is ambiguity in the word. Admittingly the word "Bible" ultimately is from Greek "biblion" which can be used for an ordinary word of a book but modern uses of the word "Bible" is more abstract and specific to a Holy Book.

In Islam however, if there are any conflicts they will quickly point to the books being corrupted. Isalm does not accept any canon and will only use the language as referenced in the Quran and if it can't be reconciled to Christian or Jewish scripture then it is a problem of corruption, not a problem of the Quran. The Quran is 1 book, and the concept of the Tawrat and Injil is also that these are only 1 book that shares the same message as the Quran. This works for the Torah which is actually only 1 book that we have turned into 5 but it does not work for the gospel which was never meant to be a one-of or one book being the authority. Since the Bible is made up of several books this reinforces the idea of corruption and various debate regarding which books should be included in a canon only fuels this perception of corruption. this is not a problem because the perception is the message has been perserved within the Quran

This is why Christians tend to stand out in our outlook at older scripture. for the most part Christian bibles use the same canon as Jewish bibles for the OT and often it is translated from the exact same words. Christians embrace the older books and use them to show how they point to Christ rather than cross them out to promote the next thing. Jesus said himself "Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" so the DNA of Christianity is proclaimed through the old and that's a core value from the start and we don't look at the old and say it's corrupted if we can't figure it out.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,351
2,317
Perth
✟198,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It also seems to be quite popular with Catholics here at CF. I had never heard of it until I ran across various posts from Catholics defending the deutercanonical books by dismissing the canon established by Jews at the alleged Council of Jamnia.
I think that the Catholics are indicating that the alleged council of Jamnia is unpopular in Catholic circles :)
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,147
5,762
Minnesota
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It also seems to be quite popular with Catholics here at CF. I had never heard of it until I ran across various posts from Catholics defending the deutercanonical books by dismissing the canon established by Jews at the alleged Council of Jamnia.

The fact remains that the Jewish canon does not include the deutercanonical books. It probably has no more relevance to Christianity than the canon of Islam (which was hotly debated for quite a lengthy period). By that, I mean that Islam also includes the Bible (Injil) in its canon of scriptures. Whether or not Islam embraces deutercanonical books is of no relevance to Jews or Christians.
Certainly around that time in the late 300s when the Catholic Church compiled the 73 books of the Bible it was brought up that many Jews were rejecting the deuterocanonicals. How could they accept that passage referred to in Hebrews (2 Maccabees 7:7-9) where people were willing to undergo torture because of their belief in resurrection? But the Catholic Church decided that there was no obligation whatsoever to follow Jews who had rejected Christ.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,255
13,959
73
✟421,221.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Islam teaches that the Tawrat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) are the same messages of the Quran and Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in Arabic "the book" is al-Kitab which literally means "the book" so there is ambiguity in the word. Admittingly the word "Bible" ultimately is from Greek "biblion" which can be used for an ordinary word of a book but modern uses of the word "Bible" is more abstract and specific to a Holy Book.

In Islam however, if there are any conflicts they will quickly point to the books being corrupted. Isalm does not accept any canon and will only use the language as referenced in the Quran and if it can't be reconciled to Christian or Jewish scripture then it is a problem of corruption, not a problem of the Quran. The Quran is 1 book, and the concept of the Tawrat and Injil is also that these are only 1 book that shares the same message as the Quran. This works for the Torah which is actually only 1 book that we have turned into 5 but it does not work for the gospel which was never meant to be a one-of or one book being the authority. Since the Bible is made up of several books this reinforces the idea of corruption and various debate regarding which books should be included in a canon only fuels this perception of corruption. this is not a problem because the perception is the message has been perserved within the Quran

This is why Christians tend to stand out in our outlook at older scripture. for the most part Christian bibles use the same canon as Jewish bibles for the OT and often it is translated from the exact same words. Christians embrace the older books and use them to show how they point to Christ rather than cross them out to promote the next thing. Jesus said himself "Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" so the DNA of Christianity is proclaimed through the old and that's a core value from the start and we don't look at the old and say it's corrupted if we can't figure it out.

Thank you for the excellent post clarifying my point. I did not want to take the time to go into the details and subtleties of the Islamic understanding of the Bible and am very grateful that you have done so.
 
Upvote 0