Apocryphal books

[Turgonian]

Dave Armstrong makes out, in his article The Apocrypha: Why It's Part of the Bible, that the apocryphal books were rather arbitrarily discarded by Protestants. Could you enlighten me on what grounds Protestants omitted these books from the canon?

[FFC]

Dave Armstrong makes out, in his article The Apocrypha: Why It's Part of the Bible, that the apocryphal books were rather arbitrarily discarded by Protestants. Could you enlighten me on what grounds Protestants omitted these books from the canon?

Very good article! I would also like to be enlightened.

[Jac3510]

I wasn't impressed. I picked up the first OT Introduction on my shelf, which happens to be Gleason Archer's Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Moody Press, '94 ed.), and found this discussed in detail. Let me quote the entire section from his work:

Not only Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox communions contend for the canonicity of the fourteen apocryphal books (in whole or in part), but also Protestant scholars of liberal persuasion speak of an “Alexandrian Canon” as having equal claims to validity with those of the so-called Palestinian Canon (of twenty-two or thirty-nine books). The evidence appealed to for this contention deserve careful scrutiny.

The first argument deduced in favor of the Apocrypha is that the early versions contained them. This, however, is only partially true. Certainly the Aramaic Targums did not recognize them. Not even the Syriac Peshitta in its earliest form contained a single apocryphal book; it was only later that some of them were added. We have just seen that Jerome, the great translator of the Scriptures in Latin, did not recognize the Apocrypha as being of equal authority with the books of the Hebrew canon. A more careful investigation of this claim narrows down the authority of the Apocrypha as resting upon only one ancient version, the Septuagint, and those later translations (such as the Itala, the Coptic and Ethiopic, and later Syriac) which were derived from it. Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (noncanonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (noncanonical, according to Rome). The Alexandrinis (A) contains three “noncanonical” Apocrypha: 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees. Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of Apocrypha, and that the fourteen accepted by the Roman church are by no means substantiated by the testimony of the great uncials of the fourth and fifth centuries.

It is urged by protagonists of the Apocrypha that the presence of apocryphal books in the LXX indicates the existence of a so-called Alexandrian Canon, which included these fourteen extra books. But it is by no means certain that all the books in the LXX were considered canonical even by the Alexandrian Jews themselves. Quite decisive against this is the evidence of the writings of Philo of Alexandria (who lived in the first century A.D.). Although he quotes frequently from the canonical books of the “Palestinian Canon,” he never once quotes from any of the apocryphal books. This is impossible to reconcile with the theory of a larger Alexandrian Canon, unless perchance some Alexandrian Jews did not accept this Alexandrian Canon, while others did.

Secondly, it is reliably reported that Aquila's Greek Version was accepted by the Alexandrian Jews in the second century A.D., even though it did not contain the Apocrypha. A reasonable deduction from thees evidences would be that (as Jerome himself put it) the Alexandrian Jews chose to include in their edition of the Old Testament both the books they recognized as canonical and also the books which were “ecclesiastical” (i.e., considered valuable and edifying though not inerrant).

Additional support for this supposition (that subcanonical works may be preserved and utilized along with canonical) has recently been found in the discoveries of Qumran Cave 4. There in the heartland of Palestine, where surely the Palestinian Canon should have been authoritative, at least two apocryphal books are represented—Ecclesiasticus and Tobit. One fragment of Tobit appears on a scrap of papyrus, another on leather; there is also a leather fragment in Hebrew. Several fragments of Ecclesiasticus were also discovered there, and so far as they go, at least, agree quite exactly with the eleventh-century MS of Ecclesiasticus found in the Cairo Geniza back in the 1890s (cf. Burrows, MLDSS, pp. 177-78). For that matter, the Fourth Qumran Cave has also yielded pseudepigraphical works like the Testament of Levi in Aramaic, the Testament of Levi in Hebrew, and the book of Enoch (fragments from ten different MSS!). Surely no one could seriously contend that the straightlaced Qumran sectarians considered all these apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works canonical simply because they possessed copies of them.

Appeal is often made to the fact that the New Testament usually employs the LXX translation in its quotations from the Old Testament. Therefore, since the LXX did contain the Apocrypha, the New Testament apostles must have recognized the authority of the entire LXX as it was then constituted. Moreover it is a fact, it is urged, that appeal is occasionally made to works outside the Palestinian Canon. Wildeboar and Torrey have collected all possible instances of such quotations or allusions to apocryphal works, including several which are only suspect.

But this line of argument is really irrelevant to the issue at hand, since none of those sources is even alleged to be from the fourteen books of the Roman Apocrypha. In most cases these works which are supposed to have been quoted from have long since disappeared—works such as Apocalypse of Elias and (apart from the Latin fragment) Assumption of Moses. Only in one instance, the quotation from Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-16, has the source quoted survived. There are quotations from pagan Greek authors too in the New Testament. In Acts 17:28 Paul quotes from Aratus' Phaenomena, line 5; in 1 Cor. 15:33 he quotes from Menander's comedy, Thais. Surely no one would suppose that such quotations as these establish the canonicity of either Aratus or Menander. On the contrary, the testimony of the New Testament is most decisive against the canonicity of the fourteen books of the Apocrypha. Virtually all the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are quoted from as divinely authoritative, or at least alluded to. While it has just been pointed out that mere quotation does not necessarily establish canonicity, nevertheless it is inconceivable that the New Testament authors could have considered the fourteen books of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha canonical and never once quoted from or alluded to any of them.

The second chief argument in favor of the Apocrypha is that the church Fathers quote from these books as authoritative. It would be more correct to say that some of the early Christian writers appear to do so, while others take a clear-cut stance against their canonicity. Among those in favor are the writers of 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, and most notably Jerome's younger contemporary, Augustine of Hippo. Yet we must qualify this advocacy as only apparent, or at least presumptive, for we have already seen that Jude could quote Enoch as containing a true account of one ancient episode without necessarily endorsing the whole book of Enoch as canonical. As for Augustine, his attitude was rather uncritical and inconsistent. On the one hand, he threw his influence at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) in favor of including the entire fourteen as canonical; on the other hand, when an appeal was made by an antagonist to a passage in 2 Maccabees to settle an argument, Augustine replied that his cause must be weak if he had to resort to a book not in the same category as those received and accepted by the Jews.

The ambiguous advocacy of the Apocrypha on the part of Augustine is more than offset by the contrary position of th revered Athanasius (who died in A.D. 365), so highly regarded by both the East and the West as the champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy. In his Thirty-ninth Letter he discussed the “particular books and their number, which are accepted by the church.” In paragraph 4 he says, “There are, then, of the Old Testament twenty-two books in number,” and he proceeds to enumerate the same books as are found in the MT in approximately the same order as in the Protestant Bible. In paragraphs 6 and 7 he states that the extrabiblical books (i.e., the fourteen of the Apocrypha) are “not included in the canon,” but merely “appointed to be read.” Nevertheless, the Eastern Church later showed a tendancy to concur with the Western in the acceptance of the Apocrypha (second Trullan Council at Constantinople in A.D. 692). Even so, there were many who had misgivings about some of the fourteen, and at last in Jerusalem in 1672 the Greek Church narrowed down the number of canonical Apocrypha to four: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith.

That from pp.81-84. That I haven't even looked at the other introductions on my shelf, nor done the first google search on the question, tells me that 1) either Archer is the only person to have ever responded to the question, or 2) more likely, the person who wrote that article hasn't done the faintest bit of research.

Hope this helps.

[Turgonian]

It does. Thanks!

[Fortigurn]

I examine Roman Catholic claims of quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament here.

[Byblos]

I examine Roman Catholic claims of quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament here.

Even if we were to assume your examination to be correct (which could very well be, I don't know. I didn't go into it in any detail), I hope you're not claiming that if Jesus didn't directly reference a book then that book must not be canonical.

[Fortigurn]

I examine Roman Catholic claims of quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament here.

Even if we were to assume your examination to be correct (which could very well be, I don't know. I didn't go into it in any detail), I hope you're not claiming that if Jesus didn't directly reference a book then that book must not be canonical.

No I am not. If you read what I wrote, you would find that I examined Catholic claims for quotations of the deueterocanonicals in the New Testament, and their claims that such references indicate that these books were regarded as canonical.

They fall into the opposite error - of claiming that simply because a book may be referred to in Scripture, means that it is necessarily canonical. How about the Book of Jasher? Book of Enoch?

[FFC]

I examine Roman Catholic claims of quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament here.

Even if we were to assume your examination to be correct (which could very well be, I don't know. I didn't go into it in any detail), I hope you're not claiming that if Jesus didn't directly reference a book then that book must not be canonical.

No I am not. If you read what I wrote, you would find that I examined Catholic claims for quotations of the deueterocanonicals in the New Testament, and their claims that such references indicate that these books were regarded as canonical.

They fall into the opposite error - of claiming that simply because a book may be referred to in Scripture, means that it is necessarily canonical. How about the Book of Jasher? Book of Enoch?

Hi Fortigurn,
I read your posts and they are very thorough and well written. I'm curious about this whole subject right now. If I may ask, in your opinion, what constitutes the claim that any book has a rightful place in the canon...besides outright contradictions?

Thanks
FFC

[Fortigurn]

Hi Fortigurn,
I read your posts and they are very thorough and well written.

Thank you.

I'm curious about this whole subject right now. If I may ask, in your opinion, what constitutes the claim that any book has a rightful place in the canon...besides outright contradictions?

I have written a brief article on this here.

[Byblos]

I examine Roman Catholic claims of quotes from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament here.

Even if we were to assume your examination to be correct (which could very well be, I don't know. I didn't go into it in any detail), I hope you're not claiming that if Jesus didn't directly reference a book then that book must not be canonical.

No I am not. If you read what I wrote, you would find that I examined Catholic claims for quotations of the deueterocanonicals in the New Testament, and their claims that such references indicate that these books were regarded as canonical.

They fall into the opposite error - of claiming that simply because a book may be referred to in Scripture, means that it is necessarily canonical. How about the Book of Jasher? Book of Enoch?

With that logic one can then even claim the book of Genesis is not inspired. The fact is that Jesus and the inspired Gospel writers saw fit to reference the LXX more times than any of the other books (the deutero books notwithstanding). Obviously they gave the LXX as a whole more weight than the others. That's a good enough reference for me.

[Fortigurn]

With that logic one can then even claim the book of Genesis is not inspired.

What logic? My point is valid. Just because a book is quoted doesn't mean it's canonical. Would you dispute that? Do you believe the Book of Jasher is canonical? The Book of Enoch?

So what we do is find other ways to determine canonicity. We need to see if a book is being quoted as Scripture. We look for phrase such as 'As the Scripture says', or 'For it is written', or 'As God said', or 'It is written in the prophet Isaiah', or a number of other phrases used in the New Testament to identify Scriptural books.

The fact is that Jesus and the inspired Gospel writers saw fit to reference the LXX more times than any of the other books (the deutero books notwithstanding). Obviously they gave the LXX as a whole more weight than the others. That's a good enough reference for me.

Two points:

* They quoted the Greek Old Testament very often (and also the Hebrew text), but there's a difference between quoting the Greek Old Testament and quoting the LXX (the LXX contained only the Pentateuch, certainly not the deuterocanonicals)

* They never quoted the deuterocanonicals at all

You're hard pressed to convince me that they believed the deuterocanonicals were canonical, given the fact that they never once quoted them.

[Byblos]

With that logic one can then even claim the book of Genesis is not inspired.

What logic? My point is valid. Just because a book is quoted doesn't mean it's canonical. Would you dispute that? Do you believe the Book of Jasher is canonical? The Book of Enoch?

So what we do is find other ways to determine canonicity. We need to see if a book is being quoted as Scripture. We look for phrase such as 'As the Scripture says', or 'For it is written', or 'As God said', or 'It is written in the prophet Isaiah', or a number of other phrases used in the New Testament to identify Scriptural books.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am merely pointing out the other side of the coin. While quoting from a book doesn't necessarily make it canonical, not quoting from one (which you seem to imply by your examination of RC quoting from deutero books) does not necessarily make it non-canonical either.

The fact is that Jesus and the inspired Gospel writers saw fit to reference the LXX more times than any of the other books (the deutero books notwithstanding). Obviously they gave the LXX as a whole more weight than the others. That's a good enough reference for me.

Two points:

* They quoted the Greek Old Testament very often (and also the Hebrew text), but there's a difference between quoting the Greek Old Testament and quoting the LXX (the LXX contained only the Pentateuch, certainly not the deuterocanonicals)

Are you sure? All my sources say the LXX did contain the deutero books. In fact, that's the basis under which the RC claims them to be canonical, the fact that they were in the Septuagint and the fact that Jesus and the Gospel writers quoted from it more than all other references combined.

* They never quoted the deuterocanonicals at all

You're hard pressed to convince me that they believed the deuterocanonicals were canonical, given the fact that they never once quoted them.

That's the point I was trying to make. By that same logic, we'd have to question the canonicity of the other 8 OT books never quoted (such as Song of Songs).

[Fortigurn]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am merely pointing out the other side of the coin. While quoting from a book doesn't necessarily make it canonical, not quoting from one (which you seem to imply by your examination of RC quoting from deutero books) does not necessarily make it non-canonical either.

I have not said that not quoting from one necessarily means it was not canonical. Indeed, I have specifically said that I am not advancing such an argument.

Are you sure? All my sources say the LXX did contain the deutero books. In fact, that's the basis under which the RC claims them to be canonical, the fact that they were in the Septuagint and the fact that Jesus and the Gospel writers quoted from it more than all other references combined.

It is a common fallacy. If you read the article to which I linked, you will find plenty of evidence that the original LXX contained only the Pentateuch (the letter of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and Jerome). The other books were translated into Greek later, but the LXX as we know it only contained the Pentateuch.

The LXX which we read today is Brenton's translation, taken from Codex Vaticanus, which is a 4th century Christian Greek Old Testament (not the original LXX of the Jews, nor the later Jewish Greek Old Testament).

That's the point I was trying to make. By that same logic, we'd have to question the canonicity of the other 8 OT books never quoted (such as Song of Songs).

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that just because a book isn't quoted necessarily means it is not canonical. I am saying that if a book is not quoted, it is not possible to claim that it is canonical, unless you can provide other evidence from Scripture or history that it was considered canonical.

We can certainly do this for Song of Songs. You cannot find any Scriptural or historical evidence, on the other hand, that Christ and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonicals as canonical.

[Byblos]

Are you sure? All my sources say the LXX did contain the deutero books. In fact, that's the basis under which the RC claims them to be canonical, the fact that they were in the Septuagint and the fact that Jesus and the Gospel writers quoted from it more than all other references combined.

It is a common fallacy. If you read the article to which I linked, you will find plenty of evidence that the original LXX contained only the Pentateuch (the letter of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and Jerome). The other books were translated into Greek later, but the LXX as we know it only contained the Pentateuch.

The LXX which we read today is Brenton's translation, taken from Codex Vaticanus, which is a 4th century Christian Greek Old Testament (not the original LXX of the Jews, nor the later Jewish Greek Old Testament).

Well you know what they say: one man's fallacy is another man's proof (actually I'm probably the only one who said that but you know what I mean).

In any case, not as a point of contention or debate but only for the sake of completeness for the reader, here's a link that summarizes rather nicely the RC's position wrt the deutercanonical books.