Books of the Apocrypha

[Arcangl86]

While I haven't shared this yet, I am currently a seminarian pursuing ordination. So because of this, this semester I'm taking a Confessions class. I noticed something interesting. While the confessions speak about the authority of the Old and New testaments, they also do not define them as some other confessions do. So I was wondering, what is your take on the place of the Apocrypha? Are these books to be counted as part of the Old Testament? What value if any do they have if the answer is no?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Not to be counted as part of the Old Testament, but to be included in the Bible as supplemental reading, "good and useful to read."

 

[Resha Caner]

They have historical and contextual value, but do not form part of our theology.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

While I haven't shared this yet, I am currently a seminarian pursuing ordination. So because of this, this semester I'm taking a Confessions class. I noticed something interesting. While the confessions speak about the authority of the Old and New testaments, they also do not define them as some other confessions do. So I was wondering, what is your take on the place of the Apocrypha? Are these books to be counted as part of the Old Testament? What value if any do they have if the answer is no?

I'd say they are an authority, but not, like the Protocanon, a final authority. After all, that's what Sola Scriptura means: Scripture is not the only authority, but the sole final and inspired authority. In that sense, the Apocrypha is like the seven ecumenical church councils and the Book of Concord: Authoritative, but not ultimately authoritative.

There's also our classic distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. Homologoumena are books that are commonly agreed upon and present the law and the gospel in it's clarity (Romans, John, Galatians, Isaiah, Psalms, etc.) and there are books that were disputed and do not present the law and the gospel either distinctly or with clarity (2 Peter, James, Ezra, etc.). Between these there's a spectrum, and it's not only about clarity and agreement, but also importance. I'd say the Deuterocanonical books fall along that spectrum, some more (I'd put 1 Maccabees and Wisdom ahead of James and Ezra), some less (Sirach, for instance).

Do you mind if I ask where you're at seminary? I did a masters (M.A.) at Concordia in St. Louis.

 

[Edial]

While I haven't shared this yet, I am currently a seminarian pursuing ordination. So because of this, this semester I'm taking a Confessions class. I noticed something interesting. While the confessions speak about the authority of the Old and New testaments, they also do not define them as some other confessions do. So I was wondering, what is your take on the place of the Apocrypha? Are these books to be counted as part of the Old Testament? What value if any do they have if the answer is no?

I am not even sure all of the Apocrypha are good as a supplemental reading.

For example, in Bel and the Dragon there is a significant historical inaccuracy. Daniel never destroyed the temple of Bel, yet in the book it is described that he did.

In Maccabees 4(?) we see a woman watching an utter torture of her 7 sons, I mean it is described in the most absurdly gory details. And the moral is she would not deny God even to have her sons mutilated like that.
What is the message here?

The only extra-biblical books I would read are the books popular in the 1st century church and books that are referenced in the Bible itself, like Enoch.

Enoch is a mind boggling book that is accurate as far as history descriptions go of heavens, Watchers and so on.
Yet only the Bible is inspired by God.

So my spiritual guidance should only come from the Bible, hopefully.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

While I haven't shared this yet, I am currently a seminarian pursuing ordination. So because of this, this semester I'm taking a Confessions class. I noticed something interesting. While the confessions speak about the authority of the Old and New testaments, they also do not define them as some other confessions do. So I was wondering, what is your take on the place of the Apocrypha? Are these books to be counted as part of the Old Testament? What value if any do they have if the answer is no?

Correct. Lutheranism has never had the unmitigated gull and ego to appoint SELF to determine what is and IS NOT Scripture. Some Lutheran denominations have declared what IS embraced - but careful to not say what is not - but even that is (likely purposely!) missing in the Confessions.


Of course, Luther's own PERSONAL German translation included all the DEUTERcanonical books now found in the post Trent RCC tome PLUS ONE (oh, how Catholics are mislead on that!). But..... he expressed his PERSONAL, NON-DOCTRINAL, NON-BINDING opinion that the ones beyond the 66 are not to be taken as equal (in other words, they are DEUTEROcanonical). This was a fairly common view (officially declared by the Anglican Church but never officially by the Lutheran Church). The status of these books (even the number of them) has been left alone by Lutherans.

Interestingly, the LCMS has been promoting them as part of The Lutheran Study Bible and a Bible study on them (I think CPH is only speaking of the Trent extras, one less than Luther put in his German translation, but I'm not sure about that).

The Westminster Confession, Article One (IF I'm remembering correctly) clearly rejects them. The Thirty-Nine Articles accepts MORE than the RCC, even more than the EOC - but in the common view that they not equal to the others and not to be used normatively.


I've read them (back in my Catholic days)..... some are interesting (especially Maccabees), some are WEIRD, none seem..... helpful. And I note that Catholics (in my experience) NEVER use them. They appear in the Lectionary (and so come around every so often) but I never once heard a sermon on anything in them, never saw any studies on them - the only time they got mentioned AT ALL was to say how Luther ripped out a bunch of books from his German translation (and wanted to rip out a bunch of NT books too but the princes wouldn't let him - heard that one a lot). But, if you read them, I jsut can't see how it would matter..... at all.... to anything.


Another point: The OOC and EOC and RCC have never - never - agreed on these. LONG, LONG before Luther was born, the RCC had a UNIQUE tome that NONE agreed with, with LESS books in it than the EOC one, which in turn had less than the OOC ones (the OOC has several different canons). NO ONE CARED. Reason? No one use them anyway.... they were not considered of much worth..... NO ONE argued over which are "in" and which "out" - not until after Luther's death.



I hope something there is helpful....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>

Interestingly, the LCMS has been promoting them as part of The Lutheran Study Bible and a Bible study on them (I think CPH is only speaking of the Trent extras, one less than Luther put in his German translation, but I'm not sure about that).

<snip>

A few more actually:

• Judith
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• Tobit
• Ecclesiasticus [aka Sirach]
• Baruch
• The Letter of Jeremiah
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees
• Old Greek Esther
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Azariah
• The Song of the Three Holy Children
• The Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• 3 Maccabees or Ptolemaika
• 4 Maccabees
• Psalm 151

It's on sale right now too: http://www.cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

 

[SalusaSecundus]

While I haven't shared this yet, I am currently a seminarian pursuing ordination. So because of this, this semester I'm taking a Confessions class. I noticed something interesting. While the confessions speak about the authority of the Old and New testaments, they also do not define them as some other confessions do. So I was wondering, what is your take on the place of the Apocrypha? Are these books to be counted as part of the Old Testament? What value if any do they have if the answer is no?

I don't think they are inspired and I don't even think they are very good for reading at all.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Here in Finland, apparently somewhat contrary to what Josiah writes about the US-American (non)-usage of the Apocrypha, the Evangelical Lutheran Church does use them texts occasionally as supplemental reading/material but not substituting daily readings, on pastor's personal discretion, whereas both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Finland use them more frequently. This weeks apocryphal text would be Sirach 36:1–7, 13–22: "Have mercy on us, Lord God of all."

Here in Finland, all the Christian Churches use them same "official" Finnish and Swedish Bible translations, including the Apocrypha, and the Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox alike agree that the apocryphal books are and have always been part of our Judeo-Christian, European, and Finnish heritage and cultural tradition and have been a source of inspiration for our music, art, and literature art, folkway and proverbs. There is no way we can just brush them aside and pretend they are not there and never have been and are of no importance while casually using everyday Finnish proverbs based on Sirach.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A few more actually:

• Judith
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• Tobit
• Ecclesiasticus [aka Sirach]
• Baruch
• The Letter of Jeremiah
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees
• Old Greek Esther
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Azariah
• The Song of the Three Holy Children
• The Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• 3 Maccabees or Ptolemaika
• 4 Maccabees
• Psalm 151

It's on sale right now too: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

Thanks, Mark


That confirms my thinking that Lutherans leave all this alone.... not numbering..... leaving this whole issue alone. We embrace the 66 but don't officially reject any. And at best, they do seem to be DEUTEROcanonical (or maybe just DEUTERO.....)

I just find it.... curious..... that the LCMS seems more focused on them than my RCC parish ever was - where they were just never mentioned and no studies ever done on them.

Thanks again for the info....



Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

.... that the LCMS seems more focused on them than my RCC parish ever was - where they were just never mentioned and no studies ever done on them.

I can see that. I'm even hoping to do a class at my church on the Intertestamental Period and the Apocrypha.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I can see that. I'm even hoping to do a class at my church on the Intertestamental Period and the Apocrypha.

If you have materials, I hope you'll share them with us.... I've read the RCC DEUTERO books (quickly, I admit) which is more than any Catholic known to me can say (lol).... I found 1 and 2 Maccabees to be interesting (although I don't know the historical context there - I just read the text), most of the rest seemed.... weird.

Anyway, if you teach this, I WISH I could participate.... if there's anyway you can share stuff with us, that would be awesome.



Thanks


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If you have materials, I hope you'll share them with us.... I've read the RCC DEUTERO books (quickly, I admit) which is more than any Catholic known to me can say (lol).... I found 1 and 2 Maccabees to be interesting (although I don't know the historical context there - I just read the text), most of the rest seemed.... weird.

Anyway, if you teach this, I WISH I could participate.... if there's anyway you can share stuff with us, that would be awesome.



Thanks


Pax


- Josiah




.

I think I'm just going to use the CPH Apocrypha Study Edition, and possibly another text on the intertestamental period like Shayne Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishnah or something that goes a bit further back (maybe Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity, although that's a bit dense for a church group, or George W.E. Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, but same problem).

Really, though, I think the CPH Apocrypha is pretty good and offers up consensus-driven interpretations informed by current scholarly discussions, comparable to what you find in the 4th edition of the Oxford Annontated Bible and the current HarperCollins Study Bible.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'd say they are an authority, but not, like the Protocanon, a final authority. After all, that's what Sola Scriptura means: Scripture is not the only authority, but the sole final and inspired authority. In that sense, the Apocrypha is like the seven ecumenical church councils and the Book of Concord: Authoritative, but not ultimately authoritative.

There's also our classic distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. Homologoumena are books that are commonly agreed upon and present the law and the gospel in it's clarity (Romans, John, Galatians, Isaiah, Psalms, etc.) and there are books that were disputed and do not present the law and the gospel either distinctly or with clarity (2 Peter, James, Ezra, etc.). Between these there's a spectrum, and it's not only about clarity and agreement, but also importance. I'd say the Deuterocanonical books fall along that spectrum, some more (I'd put 1 Maccabees and Wisdom ahead of James and Ezra), some less (Sirach, for instance).

Do you mind if I ask where you're at seminary? I did a masters (M.A.) at Concordia in St. Louis.

Interesting point of view, but it does make sense that we would hold them in a similar sense to the writings of the Fathers. And as for the seminary I go to, I'm a student at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, so an ELCA seminary.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Interesting point of view, but it does make sense that we would hold them in a similar sense to the writings of the Fathers. And as for the seminary I go to, I'm a student at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, so an ELCA seminary.

Oh, cool. Make sure to take a class with Barbara Rossing.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I know this adds nothing new to the discussion, but:

"Books [of the Apocrypha are] not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read."
- Martin Luther

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I know this adds nothing new to the discussion, but:

"Books [of the Apocrypha are] not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read."
- Martin Luther

IMO, this is Luther's personal opinion and not Lutheran dogma (although I personally agree with him).





.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am not even sure all of the Apocrypha are good as a supplemental reading.

For example, in Bel and the Dragon there is a significant historical inaccuracy. Daniel never destroyed the temple of Bel, yet in the book it is described that he did.

In Maccabees 4(?) we see a woman watching an utter torture of her 7 sons, I mean it is described in the most absurdly gory details. And the moral is she would not deny God even to have her sons mutilated like that.
What is the message here?

The only extra-biblical books I would read are the books popular in the 1st century church and books that are referenced in the Bible itself, like Enoch.

Enoch is a mind boggling book that is accurate as far as history descriptions go of heavens, Watchers and so on.
Yet only the Bible is inspired by God.

So my spiritual guidance should only come from the Bible, hopefully.

Thanks,
Ed

I think I'm just going to use the CPH Apocrypha Study Edition, and possibly another text on the intertestamental period like Shayne Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishnah or something that goes a bit further back (maybe Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity, although that's a bit dense for a church group, or George W.E. Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, but same problem).

Really, though, I think the CPH Apocrypha is pretty good and offers up consensus-driven interpretations informed by current scholarly discussions, comparable to what you find in the 4th edition of the Oxford Annontated Bible and the current HarperCollins Study Bible.

I think this is a very good approach, to go with the study version as wrote.

Ed, in the light shed on these books with the study guide, they do give a deeper context to some portions of Scripture in that they speak to the mind-set of certain points in history.

I'm reading the complete works of Edgar Allan Poe right now. It has no theological or spiritual merit, but these writings are still entertaining. Much of the Apocryphal texts are admittedly fiction as you have noted, but there is no reason why we should not be entertained by them and listen to what moral emphasis that are offered within them; again they speak to the mindset of the people of that time.

 

[Boidae]

I think I'm just going to use the CPH Apocrypha Study Edition, and possibly another text on the intertestamental period like Shayne Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishnah or something that goes a bit further back (maybe Everett Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity, although that's a bit dense for a church group, or George W.E. Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, but same problem).

Really, though, I think the CPH Apocrypha is pretty good and offers up consensus-driven interpretations informed by current scholarly discussions, comparable to what you find in the 4th edition of the Oxford Annontated Bible and the current HarperCollins Study Bible.

I am happy to hear that the CPH Apocrypha is pretty good. I just purchased it and the Lutheran Study Bible Esv edition last night.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I am happy to hear that the CPH Apocrypha is pretty good. I just purchased it and the Lutheran Study Bible Esv edition last night.

I can't speak to the Apocrypha, but CPH's Lutheran Study Bible is the best Study Bible I've ever owned. Completely worth it, in my opinion.