Why was the Apocrypha included in the Septuagint if it was not part of Jewish canon at the time? I can't seem to find an answer by searching it for myself. Maybe I'm asking the wrong question.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Someone help me out here.....
- Thread starter Scarlett O.
- Start date
I don't know.
I just said that to bump your thread.
The apocrypha was included in the oldest extant Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and the Latin Vulgate (although Jerome expressed his doubts about their inclusion).
It is often stated that portions of the book of Jude were drawn from an apocryphal source.
Early Christians often did not always have a complete bible, the authenticity of the texts were not fully established.
Rob
It is often stated that portions of the book of Jude were drawn from an apocryphal source.
Early Christians often did not always have a complete bible, the authenticity of the texts were not fully established.
Rob
I knew Jerome was not convinced of the validity of these books but included them because he translated from the Septuagint.
I just don't know why they were included in the Septuagint if these men translated from Hebrew sources that did not include them.
Thanks for the replies [except I don't understand #6].
I'm not a preacher and haven't been to seminary, but I do know a decent amount about the history of the Bible and have taught it briefly and superficially a couple of times in Sunday School. I like to study these things because they interest me intensely. I love to see the handiwork of God as the Word was first written down by Moses to my holding a copy of it in my hand.
I take a lot of notes for myself and write a lot of things that will only ever be seen my myself.
I'm working on a more broad essay, if you will, of that path the Word has taken - just for my own use.
I just couldn't understand why, if the apocryphal books were not accepted as Jewish canon, they were translated into the initial Greek translations.
I have terrible sleeping habits sometimes and in the wee hours of this early morning, [too early for having no sleep], I found what I think is the best answer I'm going to find for now.
From What Is the History of the Old Testament Apocrypha?
"They began with the five books of Moses and, as the years went by, translated all the books of the Old Testament into Greek. In addition to the Hebrew Old Testament, other books written in the period between the testaments were also translated into Greek. This included the books of the Apocrypha.
This Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, became popular among the people since Hebrew was no longer their principle language, even in Israel. Eventually the books the Apocrypha fund their way into the Septuagint translation."
In other words, it is was it is [or was].
I'm not a preacher and haven't been to seminary, but I do know a decent amount about the history of the Bible and have taught it briefly and superficially a couple of times in Sunday School. I like to study these things because they interest me intensely. I love to see the handiwork of God as the Word was first written down by Moses to my holding a copy of it in my hand.
I take a lot of notes for myself and write a lot of things that will only ever be seen my myself.
I'm working on a more broad essay, if you will, of that path the Word has taken - just for my own use.
I just couldn't understand why, if the apocryphal books were not accepted as Jewish canon, they were translated into the initial Greek translations.
I have terrible sleeping habits sometimes and in the wee hours of this early morning, [too early for having no sleep], I found what I think is the best answer I'm going to find for now.
From What Is the History of the Old Testament Apocrypha?
"They began with the five books of Moses and, as the years went by, translated all the books of the Old Testament into Greek. In addition to the Hebrew Old Testament, other books written in the period between the testaments were also translated into Greek. This included the books of the Apocrypha.
This Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, became popular among the people since Hebrew was no longer their principle language, even in Israel. Eventually the books the Apocrypha fund their way into the Septuagint translation."
In other words, it is was it is [or was].
Trying to sift through the legends regarding the LXX, I would hazard to say that the overall goal was to add to the Library at Alexandria, not just to produce a Greek translation.
If that was the goal, then any material that increased the overall holdings of the library would be seen as furthering that goal.
Just a guess.
If that was the goal, then any material that increased the overall holdings of the library would be seen as furthering that goal.
Just a guess.
Yes, and the King James included it for 55 years as I have in my notes.
Also, I have that the Catholic Church coined the word deuterocanonical after the Protestant movement began and declared them inspired and canon in the late 1600's as a rebuke of the Protestant movement.
They needed to protect the praying to the dead found in Maccabees.
Yes the Apocrypha was included in the KJV, but no the Church of England did not accept it as Scripture at any time. Read the XXXIX Articles.
True they finally admitted that but not ONCE in the KJV itself.
In fact it was part of the Daily Scripture Reading Calendar.
I, too, have no expertise in the subject, but I do see a parallel with our modern English translations including some texts of questionable origin. The account of the women caught in adultery. Why is it in a bible based on the CT? Because there is a chance it is genuine and it certainly is "good to read." I think it possible the same sort of reasoning might have led to the inclusion of books thought probably not inspired.
So it seems you are saying even though some question its authenticity, it is better to include it than omit it? If so., we are in agreement.
My research has led me to the conclusion that both the Jews and early Christians did not regard the Apocrypha as the inspired word of God but regarded them as writings of great historical and devotional value. You might say they were inclusive with the "traditions of the elders" as other historical books used as commentaries and historical insights of their Jewish heritage.
Maybe the right question is, Why isn't the Apocrypha found in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Compare the following verses from the Apocrypha with Luke 6:27-36.
Ecclesiasticus 12:1-4. When thou wilt do good, know to whom thou doest it; so shalt thou be thanked for thy benefits. Do good to the godly man, and thou shalt find a recompence; and if not from him, from the most High.
There can no good come to him that is always occupied in evil, nor to him that giveth no alms. Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.
In the precious 'Geneva Bible' some of it is not segregated between the Testaments, but found amidst the OT books!
old habits die hard.