Augustine and the Apocrypha

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Why did Augustine champion the apocrypha during his life and during the third Counsel of Carthage?


Also Why did the apocrypha remain in every bible including the Geneva, Lutheran, and KJV up to the mid 1800s? and continues in the Lutheran bible today?


Also of interest is why the Belgic Confession and the 39 Article Confession allows the apocrypha to be read in the churches?

Beglic Confession

Article VI - The Difference between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, viz: the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, the Appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the other, that is, the sacred books.

39 Article Confession

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, pp. 185-186:

The sixth and last company of King James's Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture.*

*The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon or list of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of tile Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration, t. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures bv the lewish Church, and therefore were never semctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of tile Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in tile two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the mmmers, language, opinions and history of the East.)

Still this party of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 95-98:

(d) The Latin Old Testament (Vulgate)—The Apocrypha

The earliest Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint. Scholars think that this translating was probably done at Carthage during the 2nd century. Many other such translations were made during the years that followed. In the fourth century Augustine reported that there was "an infinite variety of Latin translations,"[7] and Jerome that there were as many texts of this version as there were manuscripts.[8] Jerome at first attempted to revise the Latin Old Testament, but in AD 390 he undertook the labor of producing a new translation directly from the Hebrew. This version, which Jerome completed in AD 405, later became known as the Latin Vulgate and is the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, having been so proclaimed at the Council of Trent (AD 1546).

In his prologue to his translation of the Old Testament Jerome gave an account of the canonical Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible and enumerated them exactly. Then he added: "This prologue to the Scriptures may suit as a helmed preface to all the books which we have rendered from Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that whatever book is beyond these must be reckoned among the Apocrypha."[9] Thus Jerome was one of the first to use the term Apocrypha (non-canonical) to designate certain books which were included in the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament versions but had never been part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The names of these apocryphal books are as follows: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, certain additions to the books of Esther and Daniel, First and Second Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses. These books were written by Jewish authors between BC 200 and AD 100 Some of them were written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Others were written in Greek originally.

The Roman Catholic Church rejects First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. Hence in the printed Latin Vulgate they are placed after the New Testament as an appendix and in small type. The other apocryphal books are mentioned by name in the decrees of the Council of Trent, where they are declared sacred and canonical and a solemn curse is pronounced against all those who will not receive them as such. Accordingly, in the printed Latin Vulgate they are interspersed without distinction among the other books of the Latin Old Testament.

Protestants have always opposed this attempt of the Roman Catholic Church to canonize the Apocrypha for several reasons. In the first place, it is contrary to the example of Christ and His Apostles. Never in the New Testament is any passage from the Apocrypha quoted as Scripture or referred to as such. This is admitted by all students of this subject, including present-day scholars such as B. M. Metzger (AD 1957).[10] This fact is decisive for all those who acknowledge the divine authority and infallible inspiration of the New Testament writers. And all the more is this so if it be true, as Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom, James with Ecclesiasticus, John with Tobit, and the author of Hebrews (who may have been Paul) with 2 Maccabees.[11] For if these Apostles knew these apocryphal books this well and still refrained from quoting or mentioning them as Scripture, then it is doubly certain that they did not accord these books a place in the Old Testament canon. According to C. C. Torrey (AD 1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha.[12]

A second reason why the books of the Apocrypha cannot be regarded as canonical is that the Jews, the divinely appointed guardians of the Old Testament Scriptures, never esteemed them such. This fact is freely admitted by contemporary scholars. According to Torrey, the Jews not only rejected the Apocrypha, but after the overthrow of Jerusalem in AD 70, they went so far as to "destroy, systematically and thoroughly, the Semitic originals of all extra-canonical literature," including the Apocrypha. "The feeling of the leaders at that time," Torrey tells us, "is echoed in a later Palestinian writing (Midrash Qoheleth, 12,12): 'Whosoever brings together in his house more than twenty-four books (the canonical scriptures) brings confusion.'"[13] And additional evidence that the Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical is supplied by the Talmudic tract Baba Bathra (2nd century) and by the famous Jewish historian Josephus (circa AD 93) in his treatise Against Apion. Neither of these sources make any mention of the Apocrypha in the lists which they give of the Old Testament books. For, as Torrey observes, the Jews had but one standard, acknowledged everywhere. Only such books as were believed to have been composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic before the end of the Persian period were received into the Old Testament canon.[14]

There is reason to believe, however, that the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria were not so strict as the Palestinian rabbis about the duty of shunning apocryphal books. Although these Alexandrian Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture in the highest sense, nevertheless they read these books in Greek translation and included them in their Septuagint. And it was in this expanded form that the Septuagint was transmitted to the early gentile Christians. It is not surprising therefore that those early Church Fathers especially who were ignorant of Hebrew would be misled into placing these apocryphal books on the same plane with the other books of the Septuagint, regarding them all as Scripture. Schuerer (AD 1908) mentions Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others as having made this mistake.[15] And later investigators, such as Torrey,[16] Metzger,[17] and Brockington (AD 1961),[18] have pointed out another factor which may have led numerous Christians into this error of regarding the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament. This was the practice which Christians had, and are believed to have initiated, of writing their literature in codex (book) form rather than on rolls. A codex of the Septuagint would contain the Apocrypha bound together indiscriminately with the canonical Old Testament books, and this would induce many gentile Christians to put them all on the same level. Such at least appears to have been the popular tendency in the early and medieval Church.

But whenever early Christians set themselves seriously to consider what books belonged to the Old Testament and what did not, the answer was always in favor of the Hebrew Old Testament.[19] This was the case with Melito (? AD 172), Julius Africanus (AD 160-240), Origen (AD 182-251), Eusebius (AD 275-340), Athanasius (AD 293-373) and many later Fathers of the Greek Church. In the Latin Church greater favor was shown toward the Apocrypha, but even here, as we have seen, the Apocrypha were rejected by Jerome (AD 340-420). And in his preface to the books of Solomon Jerome further defined his position. "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."[20] Augustine (AD 354-430) at first defended the canonicity of the Apocrypha but later came to a position not much different from Jerome's. There should be a distinction, he came to feel, between the books of the Hebrew canon and the "deutero-canonical" books accepted and read by the churches. Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540-604) also adopted Jerome's position in regard to the Apocrypha, and so did Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal Cajetan at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.[21] Hence, the decree of the Council of Trent canonizing the Apocrypha is contrary to the informed conviction of the early and medieval Church. And this is the third reason why Protestants reject it.

But although all Protestants rejected the Apocrypha as canonical Old Testament Scripture, there was still considerable disagreement among them as to what to do with these controversial books. Luther rejected 1 and 2 Esdras, and placed the other apocryphal books in an appendix at the close of the Old Testament, prefacing it with the statement: "Apocrypha—that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."[22] The early English Bibles, including finally the King James Version, placed the Apocrypha in the same location, and in addition the Church of England retained the custom of reading from the Apocrypha in its public worship services during certain seasons of the year. In opposition to this practice Puritans and Presbyterians agitated for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible. In AD 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed to this, and since this time the Apocrypha has been eliminated almost entirely from English Bibles (except pulpit Bibles).
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
I can not speak for all of those points since I am not learned enough in the Apocrypha but a few I have to disagree with...

Point 1.. Agreed, that they are not included in the Hebrew Text, but the Masoretic Text is only dated after the birth of Christ when the Septuagint which contain the the apocrypha is dated before the birth of Christ... The Septuagint seems to be older... Plus the Dead Sea Scrolls is older then the Septuagint and is in Hebrew and they contain the Apocrypha...


Point 2.. Some do lay claim to be inspired with such as "Thus saith the Lord" "The Lord saith", etc...

Point 3.. The Jews after Christ may have never acknowledged them but there seems to be a prophecy in 2nd Esdras that seem to prophecy the name of Christ and that he would die for his people in 400 years... Maybe the Jews after the Jamia Counsel did not want to acknowledge Christ? But either way, it is an argument from silent on this point....

Point 4.. Many if not most of the early church fathers acknowledge and quoted from the Apocrypha before Jerome ever questioned them which he only askerick them as uncertain.... Even after Jerome Augustine seem to champion them which is why I asked the question in the first place....

Point 5, 6, 7, I am uncertain about.... But are they instructive or historical narrative? are they catholic interpretation or even other false interpretation? example would be the prayers for the dead which in 2nd Maccabees seem to be a historical narrative of what they did and not a command from God to pray for the dead.......

Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, pp. 185-186:

The sixth and last company of King James's Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture.*

*The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon or list of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of tile Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration, t. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures bv the lewish Church, and therefore were never semctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of tile Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in tile two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the mmmers, language, opinions and history of the East.)

Still this party of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.
 
Last edited:

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
Why did Augustine champion the apocrypha during his life and during the third Counsel of Carthage?
I will respond to this single question, because I do not have the time to engage all the others.

The reason why some of the ECFs (like Augustine) accepted the OT apocrypha is because these books were for some reason included in the Septuagint. It is assumed that the seventy (72) translators of the Septuagint (LXX) included these apocryphal books in their translation, though this cannot be proved because there are no original LXX mss. It is possible that these OT apocryphal came to be included in the LXX long after the translation of the seventy.

At any rate, Augustine, like many others in his day, believed in a popular legend that the seventy (or 72) translators of the Septuagint were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and because they (Augustine and others) thought that they (the translators of the LXX) included these apocryphal books in their translation (which is questionable), then they must be part of the canon. When Jerome began his translation work of the Bible, using the Hebrew original rather than the LXX from which to translate it, it was not looked upon favorably by Augustine and others. The quotes below may give you some idea of the thoughts current in their day...

Augustine (354-430) to Jerome: For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 71, §4.

Augustine (354-430) to Jerome: I desire, moreover, your translation of the Septuagint, in order that we may be delivered, so far as is possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin translation; and in order that those who think that I look with jealousy on your useful labors, may at: length, if it be possible, perceive that my only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah,’ if in the Hebrew it is neither “gourd” nor “ivy,” but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it “gourd” in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, §35.

Augustine (354-430) on the Authority of the LXX: For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator, of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behooves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed: in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 43.

Augustine (354-430): The Latin texts, therefore, of the Old Testament are, as I was about to say, to be corrected if necessary by the authority of the Greeks, and especially by that of those who, though they were seventy in number, are said to have translated as with one voice. As to the books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the diversities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek, especially those that are found in the churches of greater learning and research. NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 15.

Jerome (347-420): to Augustine: In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one Ms. here and there which has not these interpolations. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 75, §19.

Interestingly enough, Augustine did not believe the modern day Roman Catholic contention that the Church (of Rome) can infallibly identify the canon of Holy Scripture. The following quote from Augustine shows that churches in his day did disagree over the books to be included in the canon, and that when they did their authority was to be regarded as equal. If their authority in their differences was to be regarded as equal, then that precludes any notion of infallibility...
Augustine (354-430) on the Canon of Scripture: But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.

A side note for the controversy between Romanists and Protestants on the canon of Holy Scripture: The councils of Hippo and Carthage received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras as canonical. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage and Pope Innocent I received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo and Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and designated it as 3 Esdras.

DTK
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
J. Van Bruggen, The Church Says Amen: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession, pp. 41-42:

2. Church usage

In the translation of the Septuagint (approximately two hundred hundred years before Christ) ten books were added to the Old Testament. The Jews had never included these in the canon and Christ and His apostles never quoted from them. Athanasius and Jerome did not recognize them as divine. However, because Hebrew was not known and the Septuagint was used for the Old Testament, its apocryphal additions found their way into the Churches. The Roman Catholic Church has included them in the Vulgate (approved translation), among the books of the Old Testament, and regards them as semi-canonical, which means canonical but to a second degree. The reformers did not recognize them as divine, but did not completely break from using them. At the Synod of Dort the question arose whether or not the apocryphal books should be included in the translation of the Bible. The Dutch were strongly opposed to it, but because no other Church outside their country had previously excluded them, and for fear of embarrassing the foreign delegates, it was decided to include them. However, they were to be inserted after the books of the New Testament so that it would be clear to all that they did not belong to the Bible but were merely an appendix. Besides, they were prefaced, warning the reader along the lines of this article. The apocryphal books were also printed in smaller print and were not accompanied with annotations.

From the Introduction to the 2002 facsimile reprint of the 1657 (Haak translation of the) Dutch Annotations (which does not include the Apocrypha):

The annotators were to be knowledgeable about many things. It becomes clear from the marginal notes that they were well versed in the writings of the church fathers and the classics, the heathen as well as the Christian historians, and even in the work of the Jewish rabbis. Philosophers, heretics, Roman Catholic popes, councils, the Reformers - they can all be found. Sporadically something from the Apocryphal books can be read in the marginal notes, as well as facts about weights and measures, illnesses, the art of singing, etc.

Also, see Daniel R. Hyde, With Heart and Mouth: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession, pp. 89-100.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
In 2005 Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today," says this of the legend of the Septuagint.

"The Letter's [of Aristreas] reputation was finally destroyed, thoroughly
and effectively, by Humphrey Hody.....[he] is clear from the title page onward:
the very first word of his title is "Contra," and the title goes on to say "in
which it is demonstrated that [the Letter] was forged by some Jew in order
to give authority to the Greek version." Wasserstein, Legend of the Sept.
p. 254, Dec 13, 2005

The International Standard Bible Encylopedia of 1994 echos the same
conclusion. Hody spent 20 years on this work and published it in 1704, it is a shame
that mythology still surrounds this discussion.
 

k.seymore

Puritan Board Freshman
And all the more is this so if it be true, as Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom, James with Ecclesiasticus, John with Tobit, and the author of Hebrews (who may have been Paul) with 2 Maccabees.[11] For if these Apostles knew these apocryphal books this well and still refrained from quoting or mentioning them as Scripture, then it is doubly certain that they did not accord these books a place in the Old Testament canon. According to C. C. Torrey (AD 1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha.[12]

Just in case anyone was interested in some of the passages from the Apocrypha which are spoken about in the quote above, I have copied and pasted some below that I found awhile back while reading through it. And I'd suggest that everyone reads through the Apocrypha if you have some extra time, many of the books are very interesting and shed light on various strands of Jewish thinking.

Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom...

Here's some of the passages that he might be referring to. In Wisdom 13 it says:

"For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works... And if people were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is the one who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator... Yet again, not even they are to be excused; for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things? But miserable, with their hopes set on dead things, are those who give the name ‘gods’ to the works of human hands, gold and silver fashioned with skill, and likenesses of animals, or a useless stone, the work of an ancient hand..."

It is definitely possible that Paul may be thinking of that passage when he writes this:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Rom 1:18-23)

Wisdom also speaks quite a bit about God's sovereignty, saying things like:

"For who will say, ‘What have you done?’
or will resist your judgment?" (Wis 12:12)


"A potter kneads the soft earth
and laboriously moulds each vessel for our service,
fashioning out of the same clay
both the vessels that serve clean uses
and those for contrary uses, making all alike;
but which shall be the use of each of them
the worker in clay decides." (Wis 15:7)


Which appear to have been passages Paul was familiar with, and Paul may be thinking of these when he says:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:19-21)

According to C. C. Torrey (AD 1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha.

Maybe he is referring to these two passages, I don't know:

In Wisdom 7:25-26 it speaks of wisdom personified:

"She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness."

And in Hebrews 1:3 Christ is spoken of similarly:

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."

The books in the apocrypha are also interesting in explaining other things, such as why we see Jesus in the temple at the feast of Dedication (John 10:22-23). Reading the story of the Maccabees sheds "light" on why Jews worshipped in the temple during this time (1 Mac.4:56-59).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top