What makes the "Apocrypha", apocryphal

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by raymond, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello to everyone! I am back after an ever so long absence. Let's just say sometimes it pays to be an Army Reservist and sometimes it doesn't.

    Anyway, I shall re-introduce myself slowly and try only to post once a day. BTW I am Catholic, but my mind is open. If someone can convince me that he or she has found the true and identifiable Church into whose establishment the Lord Jesus invested %100 of His earthly ministry. I'm there.

    My topic? the title of this post. Why are certain books and verses of the Septuagint, and hence the Catholic Old Testament referred to as "Apocrypha"?
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Welcome Raymond!

    Open minds are hard to find.

    There are a few of us on this board that will make the same statement you made - but it is hard to find people willing to follow through on it. (we are all human after all)

    -----------------------------------

    Because the Hebrew OT did not contain them.

    Because Jerome identified them as such.

    Because almost every Bible compiler since the first century di the same.

    Because they were STILL doing that at the time that Luther did his German translations so while his Bible DID include the "apocrypha" it identified it as such.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Question for you Raymond. How can you tell a Pseudepigraphal book from an Apocryphal one?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the Hebrew OT did not contain them.

    Hello Bob,

    Thanks for welcoming me and thanks for taking interest in a topic which apparently no one else finds particularly interesting.

    You make a well-informed reply which gives me severaly reasons to define something "apocrypha"

    >>Because the Hebrew OT did not contain them.>>

    I like the simplicity of this reason, because we as Christians must be grounded in the OT. Certainly the Lord Jesus seemed to think so. But I am afraid if I follow this rule consistently I am not going to lose just Seven books from the OT. I would also lose sections of Books you and I would both consider OT, because these sections/verses are not echoed in the Hebrew OT as we currently have it.

    E.G. We both accept the book of Esther, but my Esther prays and yours does not. Do I need to take the prayer out? Likewise there are many many individual verses in the Septuagint, LXX, containing things not mirrored in the Hebrew Scriptures. Is it not consistent to consider such individual verses also "Apocrypha"?


    your brother
    raymond
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Please provide chapter and verse. Remember that the "source" for the Septuagint was the Hebrew text.

    Is it your claim that the Translators ADDED text to create the Septuagint?

    In today's modern translations (NASB Hebrew into English for example) it is not the Septuagint that is used but the Hebrew text.

    Are you saying that they should not be using the older manuscripts?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. FLMike

    FLMike
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I thought parts of apocryphal writings were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Did I just dream that?
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think the key phrase here is "Hebrew Canon".
     
  8. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please provide chapter and verse. Remember that the "source" for the Septuagint was the Hebrew text. <<<<bobryan

    There are alot, alot of stick-shaking to do. Here's a good one:
    My copy of Sir Lancelot Brenton's Septuagint Translation has Psalms 40:6 reads

    -Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me.....

    The Hebrew text as we now have it says
    -Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened....

    I sure you see the difference. The LXX version is not even a paraphrase of the Hebrew text as we now have it. It's just plain different.

    If we stick with the m.o. of classifying things from the LXX as "apocrypha" because they contain something the Hebrew text as we now have it does not, then the LXX Psalm 40:6 mention of a "body" is "apocrypha".

    >>Is it your claim that the Translators ADDED text to create the Septuagint?<<<
    I'm getting around to that, but for now my short answer is hell no.

    FLMIKE in response to your Qumran question:

    I believe that the longer version of the book of Tobit in both Hebrew and Aramaic was found at Qumran. This was despite many "scholars" prior claim that the book was composed in Greek in an abbreviated form and later expanded.
     
  9. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>I sure you see the difference. The LXX version is not even a paraphrase of the Hebrew text as we now have it. It's just plain different.

    If we stick with the m.o. of classifying things from the LXX as "apocrypha" because they contain something the Hebrew text as we now have it does not, then the LXX Psalm 40:6 mention of a "body" is "apocrypha".<<<


    Dear Bobryan,

    I guess I should have phrased my answer in the form of a question....Whose rendering of Psalm 40:6 is closer to what the Holy Spirit had in mind, he Hebrew text-as-we-now-have-it, where no "body" is mentioned, or the Septuagint's?


    your brother in Christ
     
  10. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    As we approach the last few centuries before Christ, the Jewish historical books known as the “Apocrypha” were completed, yet they were recorded in Greek rather than Hebrew. By the end of the First Century AD, the New Testament had been completed. It was preserved in Greek on Papyrus, a thin paper-like material made from crushed and flattened stalks of a reed-like plant. The word “Bible” comes from the same Greek root word as “papyrus”. The papyrus sheets were bound, or tied together in a configuration much more similar to modern books than to an elongated scroll.

    These groupings of papyrus were called a “codex” (plural: “codices”). The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture.

    In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.

    The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.

    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html
     
  11. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Timeline of Bible Translation History
    1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

    500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

    200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

    1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

    315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

    382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

    500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

    600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

    995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

    1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

    1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

    1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

    1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

    1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

    1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

    1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

    1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

    1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

    1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

    1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

    1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

    1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

    1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

    1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

    1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

    1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

    1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

    1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

    1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

    1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

    1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

    1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English

    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html#timeline
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    So your argument goes to HOW modern translators SWITCH between source documents when translating the OT? And IF they use any input from the LXX then we have to swallow the apocrypha EVEN though the OT Hebrew canon did not have it and EVEN though Jerome himself expressed doubt about doing such a thing??

    In the case of how "literal" the text is...Remember that it was Hebrew Orthodox Jews translating from the Hebrew text of Psalms to Greek

    Is it your argument that instead of a Heb->Greek and Heb->English direct translation that uses dynaminc equivalence.... what we REALLY see (in the NASB for example) is a SWITCH from the Hebrew text as the SOURCE - to the LXX??

    Here is what the NASB says for PS 40:6

    Here is the NKJV

    Here is the NIV
    Here is the KJV
    Where you find this Greek "translated" version for PS 40 from the LXX is in Heb 10:5 because the author of Hebrews is writing to Greeks and is using THEIR scripture -- the Greek translation. A translation done directly from Hebrew to Greek BY Jews.

    The current translators STILL go directly from Hebrew to English in the OT text because that is what the source text is in. In the book of Hebrews the source text is Greek (the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek) and they are translating AS the letter stated it.

    One has to wonder WHICH Hebrew source texts the LXX translaters used and were they limited TO OUR Hebrew source texts.

    But that is not an "excuse" to toss in the Pseudepigrapha and apocryhal books into the canon of Hebrew scripture.

    Not by a long shot.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not at all inclined to look to the apocrypha for anything except its historical interest, but I found to my surprise that many of my fellow baptist theological students didn't ever bother to even read it. I actually bought a copy and still refer to it now and then for background information.
     
  14. violet

    violet
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Living4Him, that's interesting. Thanks. When, though did the Catholic Bible get reduced to 72 books?
     
  15. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a good question. I will have to do further research.

    My NAB has the books of Tobit, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch
     
  16. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bobryan>>>>One has to wonder WHICH Hebrew source texts the LXX translaters used and were they limited TO OUR Hebrew source texts.<<<<<

    Good question! Are you satisfied that the Hebrew-Text-as-we-now-have-it is 100 % of the Inspired Text, no omissions, no additions?

    btw, I think you know by now, I don't. I don't believe it is even close to the Original, otherwise the Holy Spirit in the NT would never have quoted OT Scriptures which are irreconcilable with the Hebrew-Text-as-we-now-have-it, the Masoretic Text or MT. I am told that about 30% of the OT quotations in the NT are irreconcilable with the MT, and 8% are irreconcilable with the LXX. Allowing the NT and hence the Holy Spirit, to be our real OT detector would indicate that neither MT nor LXX perfectly render what the original OT Scripures said, but the LXX is a lot closer than the Hebrew-Text-as-we-now-have-it.

    raymond
     
  17. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Good observation.
     
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    We had a debate in the Theology forum on the apocrypha some months ago which can be found here if anyone is interested

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am satisified. Particularly since we have the NT Greek form that quotes the OT and adds details that may have been known to first century Hebrew readers - but not to us today.

    The Moslems make the same claim. But they don't actually HAVE any older manuscripts to use as a BASIS for the accusation.

    So -- "nothing new there".


    I am told that Santa Clause is coming to town.

    The point is - The apocrypha is not - and was never part of the Hebrew OT. Even Jerome admitted to this.

    Impossible to ignore.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. raymond

    raymond
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    raymond>>>>…Are you satisfied that the Hebrew-Text-as-we-now-have-it is 100 % of the Inspired Text, no omissions, no additions?<<<<

    Bobryan>>>>I am satisified. Particularly since we have the NT Greek form that quotes the OT and adds details that may have been known to first century Hebrew readers - but not to us today.<<<<<

    Ok, are you offering to accept a belief in a Holy Tradition that completes our understanding of Holy Scripture, if I will believe in the Masoretic Text? Fair enough, I think you got yourself a deal.

    otherwise, there is a serious problem here. Psalms 40:6 in the MT does not mention “a body”, Hebrews 10:5 quoting Ps 40:6 does mention “a body”. Is it not possible that the original Ps 40:6 explicitly mentioned “a body”?

    your brother


    raymond>>>I am told that about 30% of the OT quotations in the NT are irreconcilable with the MT, and 8% are irreconcilable with the LXX.<<<


    Bobryan<<<I am told that Santa Clause is coming to town.<<<<

    You got me there! Perhaps I should have prefaced it with –I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV??
     

Share This Page

Loading...