Old Testament Apocrypha

[riyad]

Greetings all

I have a question about the apocrypha of the Old Testament.. Do scholars of textual criticism have a position on it, as is the case with the apocrypha of the New Testament..?!

For example, Bart Ehrman says:

"Christians were frequently making up stories about Jesus in order to have him say and do what Christians wanted him to say and do. No one really doubts this, even conservative Bible believing Christians, because we have Gospels from outside the New Testament that are chock full of stories about Jesus that no one on the planet thinks are historically accurate but that portray Jesus in ways that people wanted to portray him."

Jesus' Crucifixion as King of the Jews | The Bart Ehrman Blog

"Most of the noncanonical Gospels are legendary and late, dating from the second to eighth centuries. In many cases they are dependent on information gleaned from our earlier sources, especially the New Testament Gospels."
) The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Bart D. Ehrman, P229)

And Bruce Metzger :

"As for the " pseudepigrapha" the proliferation of gospels, epistles, and apocalypses in the first few centuries after Jesus-including the Gospels of Nicodemus, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Andrew, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the Apocalypse of Stephen, and others-they are "fanciful and heretical ... neither genuine nor valuable as a whole," and "virtually no orthodox Father, canon or council" considered them to be authoritative or deserving of inclusion in the New Testament."
(interview with Bruce Metzger - The Case For Christ - By: Lee Strobel, P63)

But I did not read the textual criticism of scholars likewise about the Old Testament Apocrypha!

Or did they write about it similarly, but I do not know it?

 

[HTacianas]

Greetings all

I have a question about the apocrypha of the Old Testament.. Do scholars of textual criticism have a position on it, as is the case with the apocrypha of the New Testament..?!

For example, Bart Ehrman says:

"Christians were frequently making up stories about Jesus in order to have him say and do what Christians wanted him to say and do. No one really doubts this, even conservative Bible believing Christians, because we have Gospels from outside the New Testament that are chock full of stories about Jesus that no one on the planet thinks are historically accurate but that portray Jesus in ways that people wanted to portray him."

Jesus' Crucifixion as King of the Jews | The Bart Ehrman Blog

"Most of the noncanonical Gospels are legendary and late, dating from the second to eighth centuries. In many cases they are dependent on information gleaned from our earlier sources, especially the New Testament Gospels."
) The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Bart D. Ehrman, P229)

And Bruce Metzger :

"As for the " pseudepigrapha" the proliferation of gospels, epistles, and apocalypses in the first few centuries after Jesus-including the Gospels of Nicodemus, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Andrew, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the Apocalypse of Stephen, and others-they are "fanciful and heretical ... neither genuine nor valuable as a whole," and "virtually no orthodox Father, canon or council" considered them to be authoritative or deserving of inclusion in the New Testament."
(interview with Bruce Metzger - The Case For Christ - By: Lee Strobel, P63)

But I did not read the textual criticism of scholars likewise about the Old Testament Apocrypha!

Or did they write about it similarly, but I do not know it?

The only ones who object to the entire old testament canon are Jews and protestants.

 

[PloverWing]

The books of the OT Apocrypha are serious candidates for canonicity in a way that the books of the NT Apocrypha were not. As HTacianas notes above, they were included in the Septuagint, and they are included in the canons used by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Even for those who do not include them in the canon, these books are valuable writings that give insight into Judaism as practiced immediately before the time of Jesus.

The Oxford Study Bible that I use (a study Bible that takes modern scholarship quite seriously) includes an essay on the Apocrypha which begins: "The place of the Apocrypha in the biblical canon has been disputed since the first centuries of the Common Era, but the significance of the various writings for an understanding of Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods and Early Christianity is no longer challenged." I think that's a reasonable summary of the current scholarly view.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Luther in translating the OT, placed all OT Apocrypha after Malachi. I believe it wasn't until the KJV was updated in 1782, the Apocrypha was removed from the English translation. Hence all English translations after 1782 followed suit.

In historic Lutheranism, the Apocrypha is considered profitable for reading and reflection, BUT NEVER PREACHED ON IN THE DIVINE SERVICE or is apart of the Lectionary.

A few years back, I queried The Liturgist (I think that was him) on how the EO use the OT Apocrypha in their Divine Service and he could only come up with one example.

Historically, all the branches of the Reformation had the Apocrypha published in the Bibles of their own tongue.

 

[PloverWing]

In the Episcopal church, OT Apocrypha books (Song of the Three, Prayer of Manasseh) supply a few of our canticles. The Apocrypha also shows up a few times in the Revised Common Lectionary, used by our church and many others, usually with a protocanonical OT reading provided as an alternative.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The only ones who object to the entire old testament canon are Jews and protestants.

What? Certainly an overly triumphalist denominational stance of non historical nonsense. Protestants have always affirmed the Apocrypha with caveats until recent history. I have made radical over generalizations in the past here on CF and have gotten dinged for them. I am dinging you for this historical non sense. See post #4.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think we need a better definition of "Apocrypha" here.

The word "Apocrypha" has different meanings today.

Protestants commonly refer to the Deuterocanonical books as "The Apocrypha", a tradition that goes back to Luther's German translation of the Bible.

However the word "Apocrypha" has a much older meaning and one that is still used today, to describe a wide variety of non-canonical textual works.

This is why I personally try to avoid using "Apocrypha" when referring to the Deuterocanonicals, because it can result in way too much confusion.

There's a huge difference between Tobit (Protestant "Apocrypha"/Deuterocanonical book of the Old Testament) and the Apocalypse of Moses (Apocrypha) for example.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luther in translating the OT, placed all OT Apocrypha after Malachi. I believe it wasn't until the KJV was updated in 1782, the Apocrypha was removed from the English translation. Hence all English translations after 1782 followed suit.

In historic Lutheranism, the Apocrypha is considered profitable for reading and reflection, BUT NEVER PREACHED ON IN THE DIVINE SERVICE or is apart of the Lectionary.

A few years back, I queried The Liturgist (I think that was him) on how the EO use the OT Apocrypha in their Divine Service and he could only come up with one example.

Historically, all the branches of the Reformation had the Apocrypha published in the Bibles of their own tongue.

More recently than that. It was the late 1800's, closer to ~1872 in fact, that American Bible publishers (I don't know about British publishers) began to significantly stop publishing the KJV with "Apocrypha".

My understanding is that this was because of two reasons:

1) A cost-saving measure.
2) Anti-Catholic sentiment was pretty high in the 19th century, and many Protestants while using the KJV increasingly didn't bother even reading or using the "Apocrypha" at all, and those books were increasingly viewed as "Catholic" and therefore bad.

The two reasons are almost certainly connected, if the people buying your Bibles don't want that in their Bible, then it's cheaper to simply not include them.

When I've looked up records of old American antique Bibles from the 18th and 19th centuries, the recurring theme is that Bibles published with "The Apocrypha" are basically universal up until the 1860's. It's only beginning in the 1870's-1880's that this drops off significantly.

Websites like Shop Our Bookshelves — Antique Bible can be useful here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

More recently than that. It was the late 1800's, closer to ~1872 in fact, that American Bible publishers (I don't know about British publishers) began to significantly stop publishing the KJV with "Apocrypha".

Typo of 1782 corrected to around 1882.

Excellent info.

2) Anti-Catholic sentiment was pretty high in the 19th century

The Blaine Amendment was all the rage during the latter half of the 19th century....The measures were designed to deny government aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations. Protestant prayer in public school was allowed, but any tax monies given to the RCC was to be forbidden. Extreme anti-catholic bias. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. The last of the Blaine Amendment died. It only took 140 years.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Typo of 1782 corrected to around 1882.

Excellent info.




The Blaine Amendment was all the rage during the latter half of the 19th century....The measures were designed to deny government aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations. Protestant prayer in public school was allowed, but any tax monies given to the RCC was to be forbidden. Extreme anti-catholic bias. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. The last of the Blaine Amendment died. It only took 140 years.

While I suspect there may not be much direct connection, I am somewhat curious what possible connections, even if indirect, the political climate of the late 19th century vis-a-vis Jim Crow, the influence of the early KKK (which many forget was just as much anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant as it was anti-black and anti-Jewish) had on the development of Second Great Awakening and post Second Great Awakening Protestantism in America.

I am always fascinated by the inter-connectedness of history, and so am curious how politics of this era intersected. I believe quite strongly that mending today's wounds often means knowing about yesterday's traumas.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

I think we need a better definition of "Apocrypha" here.

The word "Apocrypha" has different meanings today.

Good point. I assumed that the OP was referring to the Deuterocanonical books. If the post is referring to books like The Apocalypse of Moses, that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

While I suspect there may not be much direct connection, I am somewhat curious what possible connections, even if indirect, the political climate of the late 19th century vis-a-vis Jim Crow, the influence of the early KKK (which many forget was just as much anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant as it was anti-black and anti-Jewish) had on the development of Second Great Awakening and post Second Great Awakening Protestantism in America.

Now that is a PhD thesis waiting to happen.

Years ago, I read The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch. Excellent work but 40 years out of date. Basically showed how real messy the Second Great Awakening really was. The colonists were basically anti-authoritarian. And when the "free exercise" clause was articulated (1791), all things English were repudiated (including the Church of England), then all things European were repudiated (Calvinism, Lutheranism, RCC). Religion was a populist movement, so anyone with a large personality competed to be Divine spokesman for the nation (without seminary education). Mega church pastors are of this mold.... By 1840, we have the splintering of American Protestantism, everybody going in a different direction.

The corrective came with mass immigration (1880's onwards) when immigrants brought their own seminary trained pastors to America which added some sanity to American Christianity. Of course the Saxon immigration was an exception to this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now that is a PhD thesis waiting to happen.

Years ago, I read The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch. Excellent work but 40 years out of date. Basically showed how real messy the Second Great Awakening really was. The colonists were basically anti-authoritarian. And when the "free exercise" clause was articulated (1791), all things English were repudiated (including the Church of England), then all things European were repudiated (Calvinism, Lutheranism, RCC). Religion was a populist movement, so anyone with a large personality competed to be Divine spokesman for the nation (without seminary education). Mega church pastors are of this mold.... By 1840, we have the splintering of American Protestantism, everybody going in a different direction.

The corrective came with mass immigration (1880's onwards) when immigrants brought their own seminary trained pastors to America which added some sanity to American Christianity. Of course the Saxon immigration was an exception to this.

Turns out that book is available on Audible, and I was able to add it to my library at no cost. While you mention it's forty years out of date, I suspect it will still be a valuable resource. And since it's hard to find the time to read these days for me, having it as an audio book will make that much easier to get through.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I suspect it will still be a valuable resource.

Nathan Hatch made the Guinness Book of World Records. He was provost at Notre Dame, but became president of Wake Forest and made $4M a year. Highest ever paid president. And probably highest paid historian also. I believe he is Baptist but doesn't show it. A vividly memorable book.

A good read.

 

[Valletta]

While I suspect there may not be much direct connection, I am somewhat curious what possible connections, even if indirect, the political climate of the late 19th century vis-a-vis Jim Crow, the influence of the early KKK (which many forget was just as much anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant as it was anti-black and anti-Jewish) had on the development of Second Great Awakening and post Second Great Awakening Protestantism in America.

As far as I know the KKK has always been anti-Catholic. My mom remembered well when she arrived in the morning at her Catholic school the American flag had been taken down and replaced with the KKK flag.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

As far as I know the KKK has always been anti-Catholic. My mom remembered well when she arrived in the morning at her Catholic school the American flag had been taken down and replaced with the KKK flag.

Students v. Harvard in the SCOTUS recent decision clearly outlined a historical racial bias against Asians, Jews, Irish, Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics.

 

[The Liturgist]

The only ones who object to the entire old testament canon are Jews and protestants.

And only some Protestants. The books are canonical in the Anglican church, the Lutheran churches traditionally have an open canon, and in the case of Calvinism, John Calvin personally regarded Baruch as protocanonical, although for whatever reason this did not continue after his repose.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course the Saxon immigration was an exception to this.

How do you figure? The Kingdom of Saxony was solidly Lutheran. High Church Lutheran, furthermore. In Leipzig, the Thomaskirche routinely did services in Latin, using cantatas, motets and mass settings composed by the likes of JS Bach.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the Episcopal church, OT Apocrypha books (Song of the Three, Prayer of Manasseh) supply a few of our canticles. The Apocrypha also shows up a few times in the Revised Common Lectionary, used by our church and many others, usually with a protocanonical OT reading provided as an alternative.

Alas I really wish the Episcopal Church had stuck with its superior three year lectionary, which unlike the RCL did not omit 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, or better yet had stuck with the pre-1979 traditional one year lectionary, which included as a mandatory lection 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 as part of the Epistle on Maundy Thursday. In the Anglican Church of Canada, which like the Church of England still uses both, an Anglican priest wrote an excellent article on the defects of the RCL: http://liturgy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LitCan_Oct_05.pdf

A Presbyterian seminary professor attempted to address these shortcomings with Year D, which interestingly we are in the midst of now, however, sadly, very few churches have adopted it. I need to write to him to find out who, if anyone, is using it, so that can see if they stream their services on YouTube or FaceBook.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

How do you figure? The Kingdom of Saxony was solidly Lutheran. High Church Lutheran, furthermore. In Leipzig, the Thomaskirche routinely did services in Latin, using cantatas, motets and mass settings composed by the likes of JS Bach.

The Saxon immigration to America occurred in 1839 with the intent of establishing churches, schools and a seminary. They accomplished what they endeavored to do some 50 years before mass immigration from Europe at the turn of the century.