The 'Apocrypha'

[Heather Morinelli]

Hi everyone--

Please forgive me if this answer already exists elsewhere on one of the boards. If it does then just direct me as to where....

I was just wondering why the apocrypha books are not accepted in some churches? I never knew these books existed until about 6 months ago...

Thanks....heather

[Br Paul Zimmerman]

Heather,

",.Protestants and Jews on the one hand, and Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians on the other hand, hold different beliefs. From the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Protestants have adopted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, which was established by the rabbis at the end of the first century of the Common Era. this canon includes only those books written ni Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition to these books, however Roman Catholics, following the ancient tradition of the Christian church,, also hold the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to be sacred and inspired and therefore canonical. Protestants and Jews call these books Apocrypha, a word that means "hidden or concealed",........." (Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. - Andrews-Kelly-Ryan Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies. The Catholic University of America)

I hope this may answer your question.
Br Paul

[Donald Wescott]

From the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Protestants have adopted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, which was established by the rabbis at the end of the first century of the Common Era

Br.Paul et al.

I was under the impression that the text preferred by Protestants, (the masseretic SP?) actually did not take shape until roughly the 11th Century C.E. The LXX on the other hand was written, or should I say completed by around 369BCE and was therefore not sublect to the same anti-Christian bias as the maseretic text, which did away with the Macabees and otthers that were clear messianic references. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what I understand. Good question by the way Heather.

His Unworthy Servant,
Donald Eusebios

[Justin]

Heather

Are you asking why they are not accepted by Protestants, or why some Orthodox don't accept them? There are two seperate answers for each of these questions. (though most Orthodox don't even realise that there is any dispute over the matter since most of us have bought into the westernized "set in stone for all time in the 4th century" concept for some strange reason http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif )

[Heather Morinelli]

Hi everyone---thank you so far for all your responses.

Justin...I guess I'm asking both. I don't know much about the history of the Bible as we know it today. When and how and why certain books were included and others not...

I'm very interested to learn more...But remember that I'm no Bible scholar...nor am I a historian. AT this point I am most interested in those books in the Apocrypha...I really enjoy the book of Sirach... and also 2 Esdras. Particularly 2 Esdras 2:42-48.

I'm only now beginning to break through "westernized" concepts. I'm learning the errors of my thinking a little more each day...I'm very glad to see some of these walls of thought come crashing down...

Thank you all for helping me understand a little more each day.

With much love,
heather

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Heather,

Br. Paul said some of this, but here is a more rounded out version:

First: Council of Jamnia, Jewish Rabbi's, upset with the use Christians are putting the authorized Greek translation, the Septuagint to, not to mention new spurious writings such as apokalypses, apostolic epistles, and gospels, seek to go back to the Hebrew original. God must have stopped inspiring scripure after the passing of Malachi, the last prophet, so,none more recent than Malachi (aprox. 400BC) is allowable. This effectively cancels out anything they can't find a Hebrew original for, or anything they know to be written in the so-called "intertestamental" period. (But Daniel gets by because they thought it was written way earlier than it really was. It turns out its one of those apokalypses)

Second: in 405 AD Jerome completed his translation of both OT and NT into Latin from the original Hebrew and Greek. He noted that the Jews did not accept anyathing they thought to have been written after Malachi as God's word, so he called them "apocryphal" meaning only that they were not useful in defending Christianity against to the Jews.

Third: in the 16 century the Western church breaks up over the growth of power and aggrendized authority of the Roman papacy and seeks to return to the Bible for its authority, making it available to as many of the masses as could read, in their own languages. Unknown to them (as far as I know at this time) is the fact that the original Hebrew had been lost and that Jews in 11th century (Russia, I believe, but not sure) retranslated the Septuagint into Hebrew, as the Masoretic Text. This was the basis of Reformation translations of the OT into vernacular languages. They accepted the Jewish judgment against the apocrypha as to its being uninspired.

Fourth: in self-defense, the Counter Reformation (Roman Catholic) Council of Trent proclaims the "apocryphal books" to be scripture.

Fifth: the Puritan forebears of the American U.S. tore out apocryphal sections of printed English Bibles that they brought over with them on the boat (the KJV translators had included the apocryphal books, and the Church of England decreed that though not to be read in church, because not inspired by God, they were still useful for private edification). But, this is what left protestant America virtually apocrypha free until the later third of the 20th century.

In short, western Christianity for the most part is afraid to rely on "group conscience" even when it is the Spirit filled church in question because of its poor showing in the medieval period. This has something to do with how understandings of Scriptures in particular, and God's teaching in general are arived at in the two "churches", though, if I'm not mistaken, different sees in the east have made their own differing determinations as to what constitutes scripture, but, they all hold to most of the books of the so-called apocrypha.

Richard

[John Kapetan]

Heather:

I was wondering what you meant about breaking through the "westernized" concepts. Is there maybe something we should know? Was that reference specifically about Esdras and Sirach or is it more of a generalization. Something maybe we could learn from? Not starting a debate, I was just curious for my own knowledge.

In Christ,

John K

[Heather Morinelli]

Hi John--

That reference to "westernized concepts" was in reference to Justin's posting right above mine.

I was born and raised in the United States--therefore so I have a brain that was taught by the teachers here. Both in school and in church. I never knew before that God was not a moody God, that simply punished us when we act bad. This is honestly what I grew up thinking. Sin was more God's problem than mine----like kryptonite with superman. Glory to GOd for his mercy! No wonder I've been prone to dysfunction---look at the way I viewed my Lord!

When I pointed out those Scriptures, I was just mentioning a couple that particularly touched me when I read them.

I can't debate on anything....I've learned very quickly that I'm always the first one to say something wrong.

---heather

[Justin]

Essentially, the Orthodox position on the Apocrypha is: ask your bishop! There is no explicit, dogmatic position on the scriptural canon, we go by what the mind of the Church knows. This does not mean, though, that it's a "free for all" and that everyone gets to pick and choose what they want. So, for instance, you won't find Enoch in the Orthodox canon any time soon (well, maybe the Ethiopians can retain it if we establish communion). The mind of the Church has made certain boundaries very clear. It's just that there is some fluidity regarding Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and also Ps. 151, 3 Maccabees, etc. (ie. books that many Orthodox accept but Catholics and Protestants do not).

I think polemics often get out of hand in this discussion (especially the ones directed against the Protestants... and this is not talking about anyone who posted above! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ) A number of Saints after the fourth century excluded the apocrypha from their canon. Saint John of Damascus even had a different New Testament canon! (cf Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 17) The waters are not crystal clear. What's important is that even the saints who didn't include the apocryphal books in the canon either 1) used them for dogmatic purposes in spite of the fact that they excluded them from their scriptural canon, or 2) suggested that they were profitable for reading (which doesn't make them all that much different than certain parts of the Old Testament, which were shadows but are only relevant to us now in spirit and not as directly, literally applicable).

Essentially, if you want to know what the "Orthodox" position is, ask your bishop. Don't be suprised though if he gives you a funny look, or asks you "what in the world are you talking about?" I've seen a number of priests get very confused when I've asked questions about stuff like this. This doesn't really seem to be a subject the Orthodox fuss over, so it's only the egg heads that seem to know that there is even differences. When you understand Orthodox ecclesiology, epistemology, etc., you understand why it's not something that needs to be fussed over.

I think I better make one more comment, just so I'm not misunderstood. By "fuss over" I don't mean that it's unimportant, I only mean that we Orthodox don't have to have a set-in-stone canon (as happened in the west during the Reformation and counter-Reformation). Certainly councils (including councils that are considered authoritative for doctrinal purposes for the whole Church) touched on this subject. However, history shows that there was never actually one, final, set-in-stone canon "used by everyone, everywhere, in every time" (I seem to remember Lossky pointing this out about the canon in one of his books, though he took it in a different direction). The only book on the Scriptures that I know of which deals directly with this (though it does it briefly) is Scripture and Tradition by Archbishop Chrysostomos (this is a very good book, and besides Florovsky's Bible, Church, Tradition is the best Orthodox book in English that I've seen on the subject of the Scriptures and Tradition.) That's just my 2 cents though.

Justin

[John Kapetan]

Hi Heather:

I didn't think that you were looking for a debate and I certainly wasn't. Being a product of the same damaging Western public schools, I thought that maybe I fell asleep in school one day and missed something.

In Christ,

John K

[Heather Morinelli]

Thank you all again for your answers. They have more than answered any questions I had, and some that I didn't have too!