quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The Anglican church teaches that the Apocrypha may be used "for edification, but not for doctrine". One passage in the Apocrypha which many Protestants find objectionable is 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, because it suggests that prayers for the dead have an effect.

There is a thread here about the use of the Apocrypha for lectionary readings.

I treat the Apocrypha as I treat non-Biblical writings about Christianity. A great deal in there is very valuable, but a certain wariness is in order.

Some of the Apocrypha is fun to read. You should try Tobit.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Actually it would be as well (IMO) to recognise that Christianity embraces (at least) two different historical decisions about the canon. These are not likely to be dislodged by argument today. It would be better to understand and respect the difference than to try and argue a case for one being better than another.

---

The thread has given me some insight into the decisions in question but I would like more. I would also like to know what people of any tradition think about the deuterocanonical books being included in a single volume in an interspersed, rather than distinct, manner.

That type of discussion is very much what I'm aiming for here.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I strongly prefer Bibles that include them. I hold it against the NIV that it has never translated them. The difference in price between an expurgated and full version is usually quite small. Even without the rest, Ecclesiasticus is well worth the difference in price.

Whatever you think of the Apocrypha's canonical status, it is a great deal more valuable than a lot of the other books we get commended to read.

I also prefer the Prod way of putting them in a separate section to the RC way of dispersing them through the Old Testament by content.
 

---

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
When we united an Anglican and a Methodist congregation into a Shared Church, the Methodists were even less familiar with the Apocrypha than the Anglicans (and that's saying something!). Our Bible Study Group did a whistle-stop tour, imaginatively entitled 'Everything you can Say about the Apocrypha on One Side of A4!' (Guess what the handout looked like!) So few had a copy of the Apocrypha that we had to produce another handout giving the passages we were going to look at (illustrating the different genres).

It went quite well, and interestingly led on to a look at some 'Christian' apocryphal literature, and in particular why some of it didn't get into the Bible in any form. They were very interested in the 'gospel of Thomas', which was being talked about yet again on TV as having been 'suppressed by the Catholic Church'. They liked bits of it, but turned a very funny colour over the bit about turning women into men so that they might be accepted into heaven...
 

---

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I find even more surprising is that the protestant authority responsible for these bulk orders and indeed print runs seem to favour the inclusion of the apocrypha. I thought it was a purely Catholic thing. Am I mistaken?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

How is the apocrypha or deutero-canonical books or whatever you want to call them viewed in your faith tradition? Do you personally approach these bits in a different way to the canonical books? What are the views, and reasoning, in it being published in a single volume with the canonical scriptures? Does it form a separate section or is it interspersed with the other books/sections of books?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Astley:
In my bible, they are to be found in their place among the other Old Testament books and are not relegated to an appendix at the back or omitted altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
My understanding is that there is also a variation in what books are included in the 'Apocrypha' for the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox traditions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The arrangement you describe is what I find most surprising in the edition sitting in my garage. It is published by the Alliance Biblique Universelle and is said to have been reviewed and approved by "catholic, protestant and evangelical specialists". Not an Orthodox in sight. ... So I suppose this is all good for Orthodoxen, but does the inclusion and still more the unsegregated inclusion in this way not come as a surprise to those of other traditions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Coming from a RC background, I can only say that "Protestant" publishers drive me batshit by 1) not always producing a version of their bible translations with the "Apocrypha" included and 2) not including "Apocrypha" in the natural order of the text but setting them apart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
if they lack the "Apocrypha", point 1, then they are automatically damaged goods to me - like a book that literally has chapters torn out. And if they lack the proper order, point 2, then they are automatically badly edited to me - like a book that literally has its chapter order jumbled in places.

---

quote:

---

put it in the chapter commentary, if you must.

---

quote:

---

I would welcome this even more if we were not talking about French bibles (correct?), because for French bibles it is quite clear that a Protestant core market is so small as to make the Catholic bigger market financially attractive.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, on this thread we talked about the canon as well.

---

I see. More further reading
 

---

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
I should have added in my comments about our Bible Study Group that I deliberately used and recommended a Methodist commentary on the Apocrypha. I was surprised that the Methodist Version of the Common Lectionary includes readings from the Apocrypha (with, like the C of E, an alternative offered), but I gather the alternative is almost always substituted by those a Methodist service.
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Of course, scroipture is not just for establishing doctrine, but for forming the basis of worship.

Middle of the Road Anglicans have been having the Benedicite at Sunday Mattins from the extra bits of Daniel for ages.

Common Worship, following the Brevieary, includes a number of canticles from the Apocrypha for use at Morning Prayer after the psalms. How anyone can claim that bits of Judges are more inspired than "The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God" from Wisdom beats me.

The King James version was produced with the Apocrypha. At what time did it become common to omit it?
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
The King James version was produced with the Apocrypha. At what time did it become common to omit it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Exclusion of the apocrypha certainly seems to coincide with both the Reformation and the advent of the printing press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
other histories of the Bible. They seem to specifically tie its widespread exclusion to the action of British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826. That is hardly coincident with the Reformation or the advent of the printing press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it seems to have been the culmination of a trend that started in the mid-1600s... what I'm trying to argue, I suppose, is that it looks as if the desire to exclude the apocrypha is directly proportional to the spread of the printed bible, and by extension the idea that the book itself might be read by the great unwashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I find this a very odd point of view. I can fully understand the Orthodox view, in which the OT is the Septuagint. In that case, you are indeed translating the OT in its natural order by following LXX. ...

Once we stop assuming that LXX is the text being translated, the RC ordering stops making sense. There's really no rational basis for arguing in favor of the mongrel dog that the RC ordering represents. Or so ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But am I not right in thinking that even in Catholic (as opposed, apparently, to Orthodox) circles, the deutero-canonical books are not seen as having the same weight as the canonical ones? In which case it seems to me it's less of an issue to denote them than to blur the distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it seems to have been the culmination of a trend that started in the mid-1600s... what I'm trying to argue, I suppose, is that it looks as if the desire to exclude the apocrypha is directly proportional to the spread of the printed bible, and by extension the idea that the book itself might be read by the great unwashed.

---

But there is essentially no basis for that in the wikipedia article or any of the history that I have read. There does appear to have been some sputtering efforts in a few cases to try to restrict the Apocrypha before the 19th century, but they are few and far between.

---

quote:

---

However, starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. In 1644 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of the Apocrypha in Church, and 1666, the first editions of the King James Bible without Apocrypha were bound.

---

quote:

---

ISTM that a better question would be what was it in 19th-century Protestantism that made it so hostile to the Apocrypha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think an even better question would be to ask what the historic catholic OR protestant views of the apocrypha were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The "natural" order of the Maserotic text, at least on a book-by-book basis is precisely the Protestant one, with the additions being stuck somewhere else because the ARE from a different place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I think you are wrong there, since I see no particular issue with the RC canon at all. It is essentially identical with the Orthodox one, i.e., that of the LXX.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The "natural" order of the Maserotic text, at least on a book-by-book basis is precisely the Protestant one, with the additions being stuck somewhere else because the ARE from a different place.

---

I prefer the Tanakh order myself. Makes much more sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not aware that any distinction is being made concerning the "weight" of these books in RCism. I've not seen this in either official statements or the practice of the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is that true? AIUI the Septuagint includes 3 and 4 Maccabees, plus the books that the KJV calls 1 and 2 Esdras*, all of which are absent from the Catholic canon. * I think the Septuagint itself calls them 3 and 4 Esdras, with 1 and 2 Esdras being Ezra and Nehemiah respectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So would it be correct to say that RCism distinguishes the (OT) canonical books from the deuterocanonical books (in much the same way as the rest of the OT and the NT) BUT does not see either canon as having more authority or 'weight' than the other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

I really don't have a preference between the overall orderings personally, because I don't read the scriptures like a novel anyway. I will often attempt to digest a book at once, for purposes of maintaining a vision of the integrity of the book. But I have never been in the position of swallowing more than that at any given time, so the differing orders are largely of no consequence to me in my studies. It is worth being aware that there is a difference, and even understanding the rationales for each. But the practical signficance to me is virtually nil.

Why do you care?

--Tom Clune

---

The question wasn't directed at me (although it could be a general question), but for me, since I was raised Protestant, it's hard for me to find the Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible without looking them up in the table of contents, something I'm not used to doing with the Bible. Having them in the middle can make them easier to find for people who are or who grew up Protestant.

I have a French Bible called the Traduction Oecumenic de la Bible (TOB) which has the OT in the Tanakh order, then a section for the Deuterocanonical books, then the NT. I'm sure that one pleases just about no one.

One of the reasons having the OT in the Tanakh order is preferable is that the Hebrew Scriptures then don't end with the threat of a curse. It's been noted that for Christians, that can feed supercessionism.
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
It can also be useful to study the Deuterocanonical books because they fill a gap between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. They're Second Temple (a.k.a. intertestamental) theology. Maccabees (which, btw, in Hebrew is an acronym for "Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH?" and also the word for hammer) shows us part of the development of Jewish martyrology which of course the early Christians continued. Against the backdrop of God's promises in the Torah that those who obeyed God would see long life and other blessings, the martyrdom of young men for keeping Torah presents a problem that people of the Maccabbean period had to work out.
 

---

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
It's funny for me to think of these books as being though of as a unit. On any grounds except later canonical judgments, it's hard to see any reason to view them as one. It's true that they're all comparatively late (as compared with texts in the Hebrew Bible), but I don't think you can easily argue that they're later than everything in the Tanakh.

Most of my bibles have them slotted in with the rest of (what I regard as) the Old Testament. The exceptions are my NRSV which doesn't have them at all (I have the NRSV "Apocrypha" supplement) and my Hebrew Bibles (and, of course, my stand alone New Testaments).

I'd be happy to discuss what I've gotten out of any particular one of them, but saying something meaningful about all of them as a unit... I can't think of what to say because I just don't see them as a unit.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Luther included them in his German Bible, though with the note that they were not Holy Writ but rather stuff that was generally speaking good and useful to read. I'm pretty sure they had their own section.

My understanding (though I can't tell you where I picked it up!) is that in pre-Reformation days the Apocryphal books were generally regarded (in the West at least) as being of lesser authority than the ones everybody now agrees on, though their exact standing vis-a-vis the OT wasn't nailed down until the Council of Trent. Which of course was after the protestant horses had left the barn...

I have heard reports that the LCMS publishing house is working on an edition of the Apocrypha, I suppose as a follow-on to their study Bible. To me that sums up the LCMS position--"We don't think it's really God's Word, but we'll annotate it to death anyway."
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek
Historically (IIUIC) the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in Greek, so they date from a later time than the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

the deuterocanonical books are for RCs "second" ("deutero") only in the sense of a later historical acceptance, not in the sense that their canonicity is second-rate.

---

quote:

---

in my opinion the RC / "Vulgate" canon can stand in its own rights as a historically valid take on what was back then simply not yet a settled issue (namely what a canonical OT contains).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Unfortunately this seems to mean that I'm not being strictly truthful if, when asked (as I very often am) the difference between protestants and catholics, I answer that in any event, we have the same bible...

---

Indeed. Protestants have least of the bible. As I mentioned on the other thread, I would be for all large Apostolic churches agreeing on one canon. But any "compromise" there would mean additions even for the RCs, who have the second-least of the bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which to me is an excellent reason for putting the apocrypha separately in bibles that are directed at a broader (ie more ecumenical) audience than one for which the canon is fixed. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to settle the issue by stealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As stated above, I would accept the RC ordering in an ecumenical edition, but I would still like to see a distinction made, as the NIV does with the ending to Mark and John 8. Otherwise things are being skewed the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think there is more to the protestant side of things here than the picture Ingo is painting of the Reformers simply tearing out the bits of Scripture they didn't like. Lamb Chopped for one suggests the deuterocanonicals were not held in the same regard by anyone in the West prior to the Council of Trent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think an even better question would be to ask what the historic catholic OR protestant views of the apocrypha were.

---

If you've never read it, you will undubtedly enjoy reading the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome over the issue of using the Hebrew instead of the Septuagint in the original Vulgate. FWIW.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
One other thought - although this says much about translation, it doesn't say much about their views on the canon. I'd guess that Augustine was all-in, but I don't think it follows that Jerome was necessarily DCs-out - more that, whatever books are in the canon, the most accurate translation should be made. Is that fair?

---

quote:

---

Jerome had studied with the Rabbis in Palestine and was persuaded by them that the Christian LXX was inferior to the Hebrew Bible.[38] As a result, he argued that the apocrypha should be included as a separate collection. Setting them aside as a separate collection, he wrote in his preface: “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”[39]

However, Jerome later changed his mind on the matter. This is often overlooked by historians. He writes: "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book.”[40]

So while it is true that Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as “Scripture.” This is clear from his epistles. For example, in the letter to Eustochium, dated to 404 C. E., Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2, saying, “…for does not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power?’”

---

quote:

---

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 manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I have just found a very nice summary by Michael Barber concerning the development of the OT canon: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

---

quote:

---

The number of 'books' varies depending on the edition... The canon of books recognised as sacred was shorter for Palestinian Jews (followed by the Protestants for the OT) than for those in the Diaspora, which the [RC] Church has inherited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Printing the additions to Esther separately is confusing, and the RSV prints the entire Greek text, not just the additions.

Maybe they should do the same for Daniel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek
Historically (IIUIC) the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in Greek, so they date from a later time than the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures...

---

Until recently it was assumed they were all written in Greek because there were no Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have fragments of at least some of the Apocryphal books in Hebrew, which means they may have originally been written in that language.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also think it's a bit more than a shibboleth. Not ascribing the same authority to the Church means protestants attach more authority to the Scriptures. I can hear the clattering of deceased hoofs from here, but I think it's plain that attaching more relative importance to the scriptures themselves means it's only natural that protestants are (or should) be more vigilant about what goes in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
the scholarly authorities, such as Jerome, realised its limitations. "We meet two effective Old Testament canons in the early church, one "folkish" including the Apocrypha, one "learned" excluding them."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But there needs to be a recognition that for a lot of other people, suddenly finding bits added in with no explanation might shake their faith to the roots, so it's not a decision to be taken lightly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The issue lurking behind this one is that of the doctrine of inspiration and/or degrees of inspiration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
I avoid dead horses, so I won't say much more here.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure that not only the issue of inspiration is behind much discussion here, but that of historical accuracy. Since for me the historical accuracy of Genesis 1, Ruth, Daniel or the Book of Job is the least important aspects of those texts, I can't see any problem in including Tobit or Judith.

---

quote:

---

The RC Bible won't include Esdras, which is at the start of the protestant Apocrypha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
While I understand that historical inaccuracy has been an argument in ruling out books that purport to be historical in nature, I've never heard the case made for including anything purely because it was historically accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:What criteria are you suggesting for deciding if a book is canonical or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
the fact that a text is not literally and historically accurate is no reason why a text cannot be part of the canon. Whether or not there was a man in the city of Uz named Job or not, is irrelevant to the power of text.

---

I agree with that. Which I suppose is why I can engage in this debate without getting all hot under the collar about it in the way a biblical inerrantist would.

(Although as I intimated upthread, I think that decent non-inerrantists should be aware this issue could be a very real stumbling-block to the faith of many and so should not be taken lightly - which is what I think my garage bibles do).

My personal and uneducated view is that I assume the texts within the (protestant ) canon that present themselves as history are accurate (with variable values of "history" and "accurate"). I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't (I suspect this might be related to the Writing and the intentional fallacy debate currently on Page 1 of Purgatory, but the little I have read of that has made my head hurt).

quote:

---

quote:

---

What criteria are you suggesting for deciding if a book is canonical or not?

---

The usual ones. The experience of the orthodox people of God in life and worship under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit endorsed by the ecumenical councils of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't

---

I prefer Lord of the Rings.

There is little that is historically true in the Chronicles.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I hope the thread doesn't get derailed.

The Lord of the Rings is an not important issue here, nor, I believe, to the whole church, since nothing in the gospels gets distorted without it.

(source).
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Want to register my interest in keeping this going per Kerg. ethos - ran out of time on last weekend to post - and will have to wait for another weekend to come alive again!

One issue that could be discussed (knew that would happen) - the 'intentional fallacy' debate is an intentional fallacy; the original promoters of that debate were referring to something different to that engaged in with biblical hermeneutics (or what should be engaged in...).

Another (dang) - there was never just one 'LXX'; there were several, with refinements made in comparison with Hebrew texts. From here discussions should include the role of the Jerusalem temple complex in collecting, copying, disseminating, and teaching from, texts that commanded respect within the community.

And (blast) - much hinges on the reaction Jesus and his first disciples had to those authoritative texts among God's people at the time, those which drove understanding about God and the way he wanted his people to live.

Then (go to bed) - we might have a reason for reacting to other texts: does one cut the textual line with Jerusalem Judaism, or Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism, or some other?

I'll come back in a few days (hopefully) if the thread is still here!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
My hope is that we can stick with the apocrypha here and keep debate on inspiration elsewhere. I'll try to think of a good OP but unfortunately my brain is also engaged elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
On Sunday the preacher informed us that the 39 Articles forbid Anglicans from using the Apocrypha. Silly bat.
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Just to say, eutychus, you have my sympathy being treated as a book depot when you weren't expecting it.

Not fair.

Otherwise I've said all I've got to say on the subject. (Shibboleth is still the word in my mind - as much on Ingo B's views as anyone's - although on consideration I see his point.)

[ 15. May 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: venbede ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Yes, especially as bibles with apocryphas are bulkier and heavier
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
My hope is that we can stick with the apocrypha here and keep debate on inspiration elsewhere. I'll try to think of a good OP but unfortunately my brain is also engaged elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
How is the apocrypha or deutero-canonical books or whatever you want to call them viewed in your faith tradition? Do you personally approach these bits in a different way to the canonical books?

---

This subject has been lying on the “Hmmm, that's interesting” spike for some time and, happily, there are plenty of routes off from there that do not go via inspiration as a topic, or at least not 'inspiration' as defined on threads elsewhere.

My personal 'faith tradition' is of those whose upbringing has been rather eclectic (i.e., those who don't have just one traditional background), having something of a close match to the experience expressed in Hebrews 1:1 “God spoke at many times and in various ways...”

One reasonably common denominator in my upbringing was that the Bible of choice consisted of two parts: the Jewish background followed by a Christian revision, and the former restricted itself to a minimalist Jewish canonical background. I gathered at the time this was called 'Protestant', though that term didn't really feature too much among Christians I was brought up with – being rather too militaristic for comfort. Later I learnt that these Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew (the Aramaic bit was a later discovery for me) and that some Christians took their cue from Greek Scriptures instead. In those days the OT of choice was pretty simply: one either opted for the Hebrew canon or the Greek. Quite simple, really.

Then two major things happened: the post-structural debate, and the dead sea scrolls. Both these 'happened' over a period of a few decades, so it was only gradually that it dawned upon me that the glib veneer of traditional historical-critical findings matched the equally glib veneer of religious assumptions around 'canon' and that there was work to do. A lot of it.

Thus I find that research into the religion and history of that rather exciting period – c. 200 BC to AD 1500 – is more complex and at the same time more open than had been the case just a few decades ago. The post-structural (and its successor, post-modern) debate has opened the eyes of researchers to that fact that their first findings (since, say c. 1750) were woefully insubstantial and that much more evidence-based rigour was required in view of the vast field of data out there. The dead sea scroll findings added to the impetus to dig much deeper through archives and sand to throw more light on 'stuff'.

So now I find that, just as with the Hebrew scriptures, there is no single Greek version translated from the Hebrew; there were/are many; thus both sets of writing groups needed text-critical work. There may never have been just one single translated Greek version, with its additional original Greek books. The early church Fathers struggled with this issue and came to no agreed position. Ironically, we seem now to have arrived, after much work, to the same point they stood at in their day, with much the same set of questions. Happily, though, with more data to work from.

I also see that the interaction between Greek-speaking (Hellenic) Jews and Aramaic/Hebrew speaking (Palestinian – or better, Jerusalem) Jews led both to productivity and also to tensions. The authority lay apparently in Jerusalem at the Temple library, where the theologians determined which texts should be deemed authoritative and which not. The first class set of texts was copied and distributed, and any translations brought back to be revised if necessary. What Christianity seems to have inherited is the product of that tension between base and periphery, between Aramaic Jerusalem and Hellenic Alexandria (and her sister cities in the diaspora). If Christianity had remained a predominately Jerusalemic-Jewish sect for a few decades longer, it seems it would never had taken the tension over, because Judaism would have completed its project of text determination that had been underway before the time of Jesus and a Hebrew/Aramaic bible would be the 'given'. The fact that Christianity seems to have flourished among Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews, first in Palestine and then further afield, meant that a Greek translation was needed. Versions abounded.

All this interests me, because I find myself asking questions on the back of this, such as: Do I take my lead from the likely scripture-set available to Jesus and his primary followers / hearers? If I do, then I am likely – on historical grounds (backed up by inferences from the record of Jesus in the NT) to restrict myself to the smaller Jewish canon. If not, should I opt for the larger set of texts available to Greek-speaking believers – and if so, which one?

The easiest answer for me would be to restrict myself to the smaller set if only because that has definition above the text-critical level and gives me more time to get my head round it all! In any event, the larger set of texts do throw some additional light on concerns at the time of writing and so at least do have historical value. They bring out the role of faith in particular circumstances and could thus be regarded as being of use and profit to the faithful (as the 1973 Interorthodox Commission put it – somewhat similar to Luther's 'useful and good to read' conclusion). Perhaps these additional writings form part of the “God spoke at many times and in various ways...” set.

I assume they will be disseminated from the garage pallet at many times and in various ways, too.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thank you for that summary, some of which I even understood and particularly for throwing light on how the debate between the two (at least) traditions has been made more complex by recent critical approaches and other discoveries.

For me at least, it gives me some sort of sensible rationale for the smaller canon that is familiar to me, even if this can be debated.

Hebrews 1:1 has been in my mind in this debate too - and following it, I have long made a point of not referring to the Bible (of any size) as "the Word od God": God's ultimate Word is his Son.

For the pallet Bibles, as I mentioned, yes I am giving them out. I have to confess that I have slanted their distribution to inmates I think more likely not to notice the difference, though.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thanks for the great link, Tom. Have to say that my opinion of Augustine has lowered somewhat (conversely, muchos respect to Jerome).

---

Oh, Jerome is much better than Augustine on anything to do with language, translation, critical reading, or the canon of Scripture. In fact he's better than all the well-known ancient Fathers on those things, except maybe Origen, who was An Heretick and so doesn't count.

Augustine is better on everything else though

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Until recently it was assumed they were all written in Greek because there were no Hebrew manuscripts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
I have heard that the idea of purgatory and other false doctrines come from the apocrypha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
All this interests me, because I find myself asking questions on the back of this, such as: Do I take my lead from the likely scripture-set available to Jesus and his primary followers / hearers? If I do, then I am likely – on historical grounds (backed up by inferences from the record of Jesus in the NT) to restrict myself to the smaller Jewish canon. If not, should I opt for the larger set of texts available to Greek-speaking believers – and if so, which one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't

---

Samuel and Kings, cos they are Former Prophets. Chronicles is mere Writings ;-)

---

I don't really understand how your answer connects to my statement. What I was trying to say is that even if Chronicles is not as accurate as Kings or indeed in a different class of literature, I don't take it as a contrived list of fictitious characters like the LoTR appendices or assorted railway histories thereof .

Besides, it being less accessible than LoTR is not enough of a reason for chucking it out of the canon - which is what leo seemed to be intimating upthread.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think one really has to bear in mind the way that protestants and particularly non-conformists are liable to interact with their bibles much more spontaneously than catholics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
To me, that militates in favour of acknowledging a "common core" (is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?*) and marking anything published in the same volume in addition to that as being different in status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The reformation battle cry of "every man a biblical scholar" (or whatever the exact words are) has led to disarray on a grand scale

---

quote:

---

This rather smacks of "Let's compromise and do it my way."

---

quote:

---

You are basically saying [...] we should differentiate between what you call a "common core" (which basically means the subset of the whole that you lot decided to accept)

---

quote:

---

is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You must have missed the part where I asked

quote:

---

is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?

---

Which is to say that if I'm mistaken in that, then that's not a good basis for a common core. Am I mistaken? And if not, why not recognise it for the common ground it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Indeed, why not delete the New Testament, and leave ourselves with the common core of Judeo-Christian scriptures?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

You are basically saying [...] we should differentiate between what you call a "common core" (which basically means the subset of the whole that you lot decided to accept)

---

You must have missed the part where I asked

quote:

---

is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?

---

---

quote:

---

Which is to say that if I'm mistaken in that, then that's not a good basis for a common core. Am I mistaken? And if not, why not recognise it for the common ground it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
the common core is what's left after you guys trashed the canon.

---

What I love about this is your ecumenical, eirenic style So much in the spirit of BroJames' hope for a way to

quote:

---

understand and respect the difference [rather] than to try and argue a case for one being better than another

---

quote:

---

That quite clearly implies you didn't add anything.

---

Just to ensure there's no attacking the person going on here, merely attacking the issue, might I rephrase that in my attempt to clarify by removing the "you", thus:

Are you claiming protestants added to the canon of Scripture as it was immediately prior to the Reformation?

quote:

---

Oh I have no problem saying, "We both have in common the bits you didn't throw overboard"

---

quote:

---

(although our use of them, and interpretation of them, are poles apart).

---

quote:

---

Inside those covers should be Scripture, not post-biblical politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just to ensure there's no attacking the person going on here, merely attacking the issue, might I rephrase that in my attempt to clarify by removing the "you"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you claiming protestants added to the canon of Scripture as it was immediately prior to the Reformation?

---

In the clear light of day I now realise mousethief was not claiming this, rather he was re-emphasising that in his view protestants didn't add anything. At least I think that's what he's saying.

To further clarify, what I am trying to ascertain here is whether any major branch of christianity rejects any part of the current protestant canon of 66 books (and not, at this point, whether this should be viewed as an "inferior" canon. Of course those with a larger canon are going to see it that way!).

I know some books were disputed by Luther, and ken in his excellent post explains which OT books or parts of books might not have been in "the OT Jesus read", but as of today is there anybody out there with a Bible that doesn't have those 66 books in? I thought I read somewhere on one of these threads that some Orthodox had their doubts about Revelation, which is why I was seeking clarification from mousethief.

[ 26. May 2012, 06:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Fair enough, but I also think it is fair to point out that phrasing things in "you statements" tends to put people on the defensive. I respect your efforts to avoid that reaction, Eutychus.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks. I was originally reacting to the phrase "trashed the canon", which I still think is inflammatory. I was half way through composing a much more incensed post on the back of that plus the "you" later on when I realised that the "you" might not have been intended personally, so I pulled back a bit and wrote what I wrote.

The issue of whether protestants added Scripture was a separate, additional misunderstanding which I think I've clarified above.

I am still, however, genuinely interested in the other on-topic questions I've raised in those posts.

Normal service may now (hopefully) be resumed.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
There is an excellent overview chart about the different canons in use here. Note that it is interactive, you will get some additional information by hovering over letters in the boxes.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks IngoB, I'll have to study that.

I'm just back from my week in an Orthodox monastery in Romania (which was hosting a not specifically Orthodox conference, although we did have a session explaining icons to us...) during which I cornered a long-suffering English-speaking Orthodox priest.

His take on the canon was as follows:

The Orthodox prioritise the Scriptures in line with their place in the liturgy and what tradition told them about where, physically, the different books were kept in the church. Within this scope he said, for instance, that Revelation was a little lower down the list than the epistles and that in the NT, the Gospels not unsurprisingly took top slot.

On the OT deuterocanonicals, without setting down a list, he took the view that unlike what IngoB has been saying here about the Catholic position, the Orthodox do not see them as having equivalent value to the earlier books.

When quizzed about his own Bibles, he said that his Bible of choice at home was a protestant one, mainly because he liked the translation (he also agreed with my suggestion that what is actually between the covers is a bigger deal for protestants than those with a stronger tradition of intermediaries).

Finally, I also investigated the Bibles on sale in the monastery bookshop. These turned out to have the Deuterocanonicals - in a separate section.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Do you recall what the translation was, or who the publisher?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting, Eutychus. This accords pretty well with what I found when I attended an Orthodox study weekend in Manchester led by Bishop Kallistos Ware a few years ago. They didn't appear to have any problem whatsoever with Protestant Bibles - and several converts still used the NIV without the sky falling in or anyone taking them outside and bashing them over the head with it ...

The view of the Apocrypha was also as you describe from your Romanian monastic experience.

All that said, there were clear differences and my rather Protestant questions were quite bluntly rebuffed once or twice, but not in a way that could cause offence.

It was all very ... well Orthodox though ... as one would expect ...

Intriguingly, I also attended an RC Lenten Bible Study group once and found the way that they handled scripture to be much less eisegetic than I'd seen in our own Anglican parish with its charismatic wannabe pretensions ...

But that's another story ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you recall what the translation was, or who the publisher?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Eutychus, I remember squiggle Andrew (font of wisdom on orthodoxy!) saying a similar thing about the Orthodox view of scripture. That, although there is the binary concept of canon, there definitely is a hierarchy to scripture, with the gospels taking centre stage.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0