Thread: The Apocrypha - what's the deal? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029340
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
I was in Norwich cathedral last weekend at evensong and listening to the reading I was thinking "gosh I don't remember this bit" (I'm fairly familiar with the Bible so I usually recognise the readings at least to some extent). Thinking about it later I came up with the idea that the reading had been from the Apocrypha. I may or may not be right and I can't find a way on the web to check. So, questions to the accumulated wisdom of Kerygmania:

1) Would an anglican cathedral include readings from the Apocrypha?

2) What is the status of the Apocrypha? I don't have a single Bible that includes them (I have a fair few translations) and when I went to the Church House bookshop yesterday looking for one that included them they all appeared to be catholic. [There was even one described in the title as the XL Catholic Bible which I kept reading as the "Extra Catholic" Bible - mind boggles.]

3) As a moderately observant incompetent Anglican should I read the apocrypha in the same way I read the Bible? [Interesting note - I'm happy to put a lower case a on apocrypha but couldn't bring myself to a lower case b on Bible.]

This is a bit of a ramble and the subject has probably been covered already on this board. Please enlighten me! This is the only place one can get a truly balanced christian view on the web...!
[Smile]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
First of all, they're not "apocrypha".
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
First of all, they're not "apocrypha".
Actually, quite a lot of Christians do refer to those books as "The Apocrypha," so it may not be helpful to immediately correct someone's use of widely-accepted terminology when they are making a sincere request for more information. It's quite OK to say something like "We [whoever we may be] prefer to call them the Deuterocanonicals..." or something like that, but saying "they're not apocrypha" comes across a bit like saying, "I'm not going to consider your question because you used the wrong term."

Just a quick hostly thought to guide further discussion on this interesting topic ...

Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I can't check immediately as I am on a tablet with limited internet access, but the Church of England does include readings from the books included in the Apocrypha in its lectionary, particularly in the eveming and morning offices. That reading is usually optional with a reading from the 66 books offered as an alternative. (The people I am usuually with to read the offices opt for the reading from the Apocrypha, but we have had others object.)
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Catholic bibles include the "Apocrypha" (or as they call them, the "Deuterocanonicals") which only occur in the "Greek" bible in the reading order of the Vulgate / Septuagint, whereas Protestant bibles that include them tend to separate them out and place them at the end, or between OT and NT, or sometimes even into a separate volume.

For Catholics (and Orthodox) these are part of the canon, for Protestants they were originally roughly like the writings of the Church fathers, i.e., not canonical but highly valued spiritual reading material. To skip them was originally more a matter of the Protestant bible publishers' decision (less pages to print), and from that it unfortunately has developed into a mark of distinction from Catholics in some Protestant circles to intentionally ignore the Apocrypha.

Most of my bibles include the Apocrypha (I'm Catholic), and a fair few of them are Protestant or "ecumenical". You can get non-Catholic bibles with Apocrypha in the KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NEB, REB, CEB, Third Millennium, Good News, and The Message. There may be more but those are the ones I know (in English).

If you don't have a REB (Revised English Bible) translation yet, I would recommend getting a REB with Apocrypha. It's a nice translation (focusing on literary quality) and you can get used copies cheaply on eBay and the like. (The current new REB copies have no combined editions, but a separated out Apocrypha volume - perhaps you like that.)

A brief google concerning the Anglican use in the Lectionary suggests that readings from the Apocrypha are optional, i.e., there is always also a non-Apocryphal reading provided. So basically it will be up to the Church what they read.

[ 07. August 2015, 12:01: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
When Archbishop Cranmer drew up the lectionary for morning and evening prayer, he included readings from the apocryphal books with no alternative.

The 39 Articles say of them

"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine".
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Catholic bibles include the "Apocrypha" (or as they call them, the "Deuterocanonicals") which only occur in the "Greek" bible in the reading order of the Vulgate / Septuagint, whereas Protestant bibles that include them tend to separate them out and place them at the end, or between OT and NT, or sometimes even into a separate volume.
AIUI, the Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments of the Apocrypha in Hebrew, which means they were written not only in Greek.

One reason some Protestants did not want to include them is that in Maccabees 1 or 2, there is a passage in which the Jews make atonement for the sins of certain dead warriors. (I have seen this passage, but I can't locate it at the moment.) This passage had been cited as a justification for the doctrine of Purgatory, and some Protestants were eager to get rid of it.

Moo
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
As venbede says, the official Anglican answer is that they are useful, but not to be used for establishing doctrine.

They're more normally called 'deutrocanonical' amongst Anglicans that do use them (which I suspect is the majority)

The CofE lectionary always includes an alternative when there's a reading from a deutrocanonical book, but any church trying to fully follow the lectionary (which I'd expect any cathedral to do) would chose the deutrocanonical reading.

I would say you should read them in a very similar way as you read the rest of the bible. (But you shouldn't read all of the bible in exactly the same way - it contains many different types of writing written at very different times)

There are slight variants on the history of the status of these books depending on who you ask. They were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, but seem to either been considered as lower status or were a passing fad by Jews. At any rate, when the Jews formalized what was in the bible in the 8th century (the masoretic text), these books weren't included, but the Greek-speaking early church (including the authors of the New Testament) considered them a perfectly normal part of the old testament. At the reformation, when people began to do new translations of the bible, they looked at the bibles that contemporary Jews were using and discovered a few books seemed to be 'missing'. Given the feelings of the time, quite a few people decided these books must be some sort of Catholic forgery so many protestants considered it very important that these books are kept out of the bible.

Personally I've never seen any clear evidence that you come up with a particularly different doctrinal position if you were to accept or reject these books (i.e. Anglo-Catholics seem quite happy to hold exactly the same doctrines as Roman Catholics, justifying these doctrines entirely from books in the masoretic text, even if Roman Catholics would quote deutrocanonical scripture to justify the idea. I also haven't heard any convincing arguments from a protestant perspective that any protestant doctrine would be undermined by acceptance of the deutrocanonical books)

Edited to add - Crossposted with Moo who has pointed out the contentious issue about including these books that I'd forgotten about. But many nonbelievers in Purgatory manage to hold the deutrocanonicals in high regard.

[ 07. August 2015, 12:40: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Ad Orientem - apologies if my ignorance of terminology caused offence. I have tried to do better below.

Curiosity killed... - that must be what happened at Norwich - they just used the "apocrypha"/deuterocanonical [I'm trying to use a neutral terminology that won't annoy anyone] reading set for the day. I thought it was rather good hence my hoping to find it again if I get a Bible with those books in.

venbede - thanks for the rubric from the 39 articles. I'm not sure what it means but I'm sure it's right (I did say I was an incompetent Anglican).

IngoB - thanks very much for all that information. I didn't know there were so many versions that included "apocrypha"/deuterocanonical books - I'd actually quite like a Bible with them in rather than a separate volume so I will have a look on Amazon and see what I can find. Thanks also for the REB recommendation - I don't think I have one of those and I'm always up for something that is literary and well written as well as being accurate.

[Cross posted with Moo and *Leon* - many thanks to them also.]

[ 07. August 2015, 12:45: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
You might also be interested in this book by Dan Harrington which would give you a general overview of the contents of these books, and their usefulness for "example of life and instruction of manners."
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
No offence, no worries. I merely felt compelled to point it out, that's all. I'm like that.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Helen-Eva The most common translation used in the CofE is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
It includes the deutrocanonicals (in most editions) Since it's such a widely used, reasonably modern and well regarded translation, I'd suggest that anyone who owns a fair few translations might want a copy.

Whether or not it's 'better' than the REB would be a subject for another thread. It is very arguably less 'literary', but it has the major advantage that if you walk into a random cathedral and start wondering about the reading later, it'll probably be the NRSV that they read from.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Reading Gerhard (17th cent. Lutheran theologian), the two major reasons for not accepting these books on the same level as the canon were a) the Jews did not do so, and b) Jesus doesn't make the same use of them he does of the rest of the OT (quotes, allusions, etc.) I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?

From the beginning the Lutheran churches have recommended these books as useful pious reading, we simply don't treat them as "thus saith the Lord" in the way we do the OT/NT. And you will find them in some Lutheran Bibles, including the one Luther himself translated.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Helen-Eva, the Oremus Bible Browser has the entire text of the NRSV, including the Apocrypha. If you want to read the passage that you heard, you can find it there.

It's still worthwhile to have a Bible with the Apocrypha.

Moo
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
Not from Jesus or the Apocrypha, but St Matthew is obviously taking the Greek OT as authoritative rather than the Hebrew in citing "a virgin shall conceive".
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
Sirach 28:2 seems to have inspired part of the Lord's Prayer.

quote:
Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned

 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Reading Gerhard (17th cent. Lutheran theologian), the two major reasons for not accepting these books on the same level as the canon were a) the Jews did not do so, and b) Jesus doesn't make the same use of them he does of the rest of the OT (quotes, allusions, etc.) I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?

From the beginning the Lutheran churches have recommended these books as useful pious reading, we simply don't treat them as "thus saith the Lord" in the way we do the OT/NT. And you will find them in some Lutheran Bibles, including the one Luther himself translated.
This is worth a read:
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Sirach 28:2 seems to have inspired part of the Lord's Prayer.

quote:
Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned
Sirach is the book of Ecclesiasticus, the longest book in the Apocrypha which includes the most famous passages (come let us praise famous men and our fathers who begot us...)

It is called Sirach in the C of E lectionary, presumably to avoid confusion with Ecclesiastes in the OT proper (a work of world weary cynicism).
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm struggling to think of a single instance--does anyone know of one?
Not from Jesus or the Apocrypha, but St Matthew is obviously taking the Greek OT as authoritative rather than the Hebrew in citing "a virgin shall conceive".
Also of interest is the reference in Jude's letter regarding the contention between Satan and the angel Michael over the body of Moses. (Jude v9)This Is a reference to the book of Enoch.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ad Orientem, your source is clearly wrong on certain areas I have knowledge of (Luther, for instance) and I'm afraid therefore I can't trust it for the rest. Sorry.

Re the Septuagint--

I'm aware that it was a major source for the NT, and I have no problems with that at all. But the mere fact that the apocryphal books appear in the Septuagint (without being directly quoted from in the NT) doesn't mean a whole lot. We're talking about ancient literature and ancient concepts of "publishing" (if I can call it that when it's all manuscript). Basically, you could have several works on a single scroll side by side without necessarily implying that they were all of equal value, from the same source, or what have you.

We rarely do that with modern books--when we publish things together in a volume, we tend to take things that are of the same value or authority or source. But we DO do that with bookshelves--that is, we often put books of high value next to books of little value or middling value, and nobody thinks it strange.

An ancient person commissioning a scroll or three could have very much the same attitude as the modern person stocking a bookshelf. Simply appearing together does not mean equal authority. It means that this arrangement was most convenient for the scroll owner--possibly because the appended books were of an appropriate length to fill out a scroll, or because they were in the same originating library from which the copy was taken. But we can't read much more into it than that.

TL;DR version: Just because the apocryphal books appear in the LXX doesn't tell us they're canonical. They did things differently in the olden days.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Lamb Chopped, Jesus may well have had Ecclesiasticus 6:18-31 in mind when he said "come to me all who are weary..." It seems to be a short summary of the passage, in similar language to the wisdom books (obvs Proverbs too).

Which is interesting, because Jesus is associating himself with the female personification of Wisdom, Sophia. Not sure if anyone else would have done that. It's one thing to say "Wisdom: she's great!", it's another to say "Wisdom: I am she!".
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ad Orientem, your source is clearly wrong on certain areas I have knowledge of (Luther, for instance) and I'm afraid therefore I can't trust it for the rest. Sorry.
What it says about Luther is true. It's why, for instance, he wanted to ditch St. James's epistle.


quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re the Septuagint--

I'm aware that it was a major source for the NT, and I have no problems with that at all. But the mere fact that the apocryphal books appear in the Septuagint (without being directly quoted from in the NT) doesn't mean a whole lot. We're talking about ancient literature and ancient concepts of "publishing" (if I can call it that when it's all manuscript). Basically, you could have several works on a single scroll side by side without necessarily implying that they were all of equal value, from the same source, or what have you.

We rarely do that with modern books--when we publish things together in a volume, we tend to take things that are of the same value or authority or source. But we DO do that with bookshelves--that is, we often put books of high value next to books of little value or middling value, and nobody thinks it strange.

An ancient person commissioning a scroll or three could have very much the same attitude as the modern person stocking a bookshelf. Simply appearing together does not mean equal authority. It means that this arrangement was most convenient for the scroll owner--possibly because the appended books were of an appropriate length to fill out a scroll, or because they were in the same originating library from which the copy was taken. But we can't read much more into it than that.

TL;DR version: Just because the apocryphal books appear in the LXX doesn't tell us they're canonical. They did things differently in the olden days.
I often hear stuff like this: the ancients thought this, the ancients thought that; but without much proof. What we do know is that the Septuagint was the Old Testament of choice for the Church and that by the Fourth Century we see a number of local councils confirming the use of the Deuterocanonical books along with the other books of the Old Testament. This is a million times for important, from a Christian context, than what happened in some fictional council at Jamnia.
 
Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :
 
Helen-Eva

Is this what you heard read?

Ecclesiasticus 42.15-end

That's the NRSV. It's possible you heard the King James Version.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
Helen-Eva

Is this what you heard read?

Ecclesiasticus 42.15-end

That's the NRSV. It's possible you heard the King James Version.
Peter Owen - thank you! That was exactly the kind of thing - I'm afraid I don't remember the exact words well enough to be sure but if you've found it set for the time in question (31 July) then it must have been. I have now got my copy of the NRSV with the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in and I shall read Ecclesiasticus first. That's "Sirach" right?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
That's "Sirach" right?
It is indeed. Wisdom includes some worthwhile bit, too.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.

Moo
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.
It also lists what the various churches call the different books, with is also quite varied.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At the front of the NRSV is a page listing the books which are considered canonical by various churches. It's a fascinating list because there is quite a lot of variety. It's worth a look.
It also lists what the various churches call the different books, with is also quite varied.
When I was about 17-18 and coming to faith and buying my first Bible I went into the christian bookshop (Canterbury as it happens) and asked which Bible was appropriate for Anglicans and how did they differ for different denominations and the woman behind the counter assured me there were no different Bibles and they all had the same content and were equally applicable to all denominations! The more I find out the less true this appears to be. (Incidentally I ended up asking my friend who was doing A Level Religious Studies what Bible to get so she said a NIV so I got that. In a version with pretty photos of biblical sites in.)
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva
Incidentally I ended up asking my friend who was doing A Level Religious Studies what Bible to get so she said a NIV so I got that. In a version with pretty photos of biblical sites in.
There are serious problems with the NIV translation. There is a thread in Limbo discussing them.

Moo
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The NIV doesn't have the Apocrypha on principle
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Moo, venbede -

thanks for the link to the thread - I don't know anything much about the NIV translation from a quality perspective so I will read the thread with considerable interest. The NIV not having the apocrypha also probably explains why I don't know much about those books. Possibly the fact that my friend who was doing A Level RS was also the daughter of a Baptist minister may have influenced her recommendation?

[edited to correct rotten English]

[ 11. August 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Possibly the fact that my friend who was doing A Level RS was also the daughter of a Baptist minister may have influenced her recommendation?

Very likely!
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I wouldn't assume it was done on any anti-apocrypha principle - in my experience, the NIV is the default version for most 'low church' Protestants, with some using the ESV and Good News Bible, and the New Century Version is often used for youth Bibles. In my experience, many in such churches are unaware of the deuterocanonical books existing, or at least that they exist in non-specifically RC Bibles. I must admit that I didn't know until reading this thread that they existed in such a wide range of translations!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It irritates me the way the 'standard' Bible is likely to come without the deuterocanonical books. I'm from the proddier end of the CofE but IMHO its a misplaced form of proddyism to print Bibles incomplete.

Whatever a person might think of their doctrinal status, the deuterocanonical books are a lot more edifying than a most of the books one gets exhorted to read or finds in Christian bookshops. They are well worth the difference in price between complete and incomplete versions. They aren't dangerous. They won't lead you into heresy. If I can, I try to get a Bible which does include them, and to avoid ones that don't. I would encourage others to do the same.

The AV, RSV, NRSV, REB, and GNB all can include them, though I think the complete version of the GNB may be out of print. The ESV is also available complete, but electronic versions don't usually include it. I think that's because the extra books were added over here and are omitted from the ESV as published in the USA. As far as I know, the NIV has never bothered to translate these books, which is quite a big point against it. Apart from its being an odd sort of religious snobbery, it also means users of the NIV cannot follow all the lectionary.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
A lot of NIV users are unlikely to follow the lectionary anyway, if they are CoE in the first place which many are not.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Salley Vickers' wonderful novel, Miss Garnett's Angel is inspired by the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha. I grabbed from the bookshelves when I was going into hospital on an emergency admission.

(I agree with Enoch.)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.

A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha,
In the bowlderized King's James Version, the original version of which included the Apocrypha.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The AV, RSV, NRSV, REB, and GNB all can include them,
The RSV2 (Catholic Edition) puts them in their proper place, including the stories from the LXX Daniel, which are actually printed with Daniel. Pity the RSV uses the artificial distinction of "thou" for God and "you" for everyone else. Mars an otherwise beautiful translation, the way using "Yahweh" mars the Jerusalem.

The only bad thing in the deuts, IMO, is Sirach. What an interminable load of unreadable twaddle. Tobit is delightful.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.

A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.

A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
I started with a paraphrase. The Good News New Testament. That's what I read when I first came to faith. One could probably rightly criticise it and I wouldn't use it now but I still keep it for sentimental value. Silly me.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It comes up fairly regularly that the Bible consists of 66 books - it was an Only Connect question recently. Victoria Coren Mitchell qualified the answer with "in the King James Bible" without any rider about the Apocrypha, which had me arguing with the TV.

A few years back I was presented with some materials to teach the Bible which stated the number of books as 66, unequivocally. Unfortunately for the authors of those materials, very fundagelic Christians whose Bibles were the NIV or Message, I was working with a Catholic girl so we subverted this into a discussion on the books included in different versions of the Bible. The student chose to use the NJB for her responses (72 books iirc), and I got the message across to the others that their absolute numbers of books weren't necessarily so.
There are apparently versions of The Message with Apocrypha - it's a paraphrase rather than a Bible translation as such so I'm surprised conservative evangelicals like it so much. I like it but it's not the Bible.
I started with a paraphrase. The Good News New Testament. That's what I read when I first came to faith. One could probably rightly criticise it and I wouldn't use it now but I still keep it for sentimental value. Silly me.
AO - you appear to be saying much the same thing as Pomona,

If anyone cares, the Catholic Message is here.

I have to say I ask the same question as to the Con-Evo appreciation for it. At least amongst some British groups, there does seem to be some attraction to all things American though, which might be it?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've got the Bible Gateway app and I'm finding it very useful. Unfortunately, the only version with the Apocrypha/dc books is the old RC Rheims Douai.

Even versions with the dc books (King James, The Message, etc) doesn't include them.

Rather than spend time pontificating of SoF, I'd spend my time better reading the Apocrypha. (And indeed the rest of the Bible.)

Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
My daughter liked the Good News Bible much better than the (NIV) children's Bible she was given. She could read it independently from quite a young age. We had the edition with the line drawings. The children's Bible had horrific illustrations, for example, a carefully executed painting of the rest of the world drowning next to the Ark as the flood waters rose.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've got the Bible Gateway app and I'm finding it very useful. Unfortunately, the only version with the Apocrypha/dc books is the old RC Rheims Douai.

Even versions with the dc books (King James, The Message, etc) doesn't include them.

Rather than spend time pontificating of SoF, I'd spend my time better reading the Apocrypha. (And indeed the rest of the Bible.)

Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.

As for my Finnish version it is an ecumenical version (Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic) but without the Deuterocanonicals (I have a separate book for them from an older Finnish translation). Unfortunately there are not many Finnish versions. I would like one with the Old Testament translated from the Septuagint but I'm probably more likely to see flying pigs first unfortunately.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My daughter liked the Good News Bible much better than the (NIV) children's Bible she was given. She could read it independently from quite a young age. We had the edition with the line drawings. The children's Bible had horrific illustrations, for example, a carefully executed painting of the rest of the world drowning next to the Ark as the flood waters rose.
Ck - your link doesn't work for me.

BTW, as a child I think I would have liked the painting of the rest of the world drowning -- I was sort of a weird kid. [Devil]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
The web version of Bible Gateway does include more versions with deuterocanonical books - apparently there are licensing issues with them which means they're not on the app.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.
Faux Elizabethan? God, I wish the Orthodox would grow out of that.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Douay Rheims is not bad. Even as an Orthodox Christian I still use it as my primary English version, mainly because of the Deuterocanonicals but also because of the language.
Faux Elizabethan? God, I wish the Orthodox would grow out of that.
Call me a sentamentalist. [Smile] I am!

[ 13. August 2015, 23:56: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Meh.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.
Well, the Apocrypha as defined in the 39 Articles and published in the AV and NRSV includes books not considered (deutero)canonical by the Roman Catholic Church or included in Bibles bearing its imprimatur. So the categories don't overlap perfectly, and the numbers would be different.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
The Douay Rheims Bible was first published between 1582 and 1610 so its language is authentically Elizabethan and Jacobean.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The NJB lists 46 (43*) OT books (cf 39 in my RSV), 27 NT - so 73 (70*) in all. It includes:

* The NJB lists the Books of Chronicles, Samuel and Kings, rather than Chronicles 1 and 2, Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1 and 2 (so counting the list of books gives 70).

Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?
There is a handy table on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
And a prettier, but less exhaustive one here.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've been reading the Common Bible - RSV from 70s with Orthodox and Catholic approval.

I'll type out the relevant bit. The Greek and Slavonic Bibles are slightly different and the Vulgate has an Appendix.

1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh seem to be in the King James Apocrypha but not in the Vulgate. 2 and 3 Maccabees vary too.

(I've read 1 Maccabees today so I'm having a break here.)
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.
My NRSV sorts the Apocrypha into four categories:

*(a) Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles [all of the Deuterocanonical books recognizes by Rome]

*(b) Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; not in the Roman Catholic Canon
[I Esdras, which is II Esdras to the Slavs; the Prayer of Manasseh (both from the Appendix to the Vulgate); Ps 151; and III Maccabees]

*(c) In the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix [includes only 2 Esdras aka 3 Esdras (in Slavonic) aka 4 Esdras (in the Latin Vulgate, where Ezra-Nehemiah = I & II Esdras]

*(d) In an Appendix to the Greek Bible [includes only IV Maccabees]

[ 14. August 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
That is precisely what I've got in The Common Bible and was going to write out.

The interesting thing is that the Vulgate doesn't include 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh other than in an appendix and they are in the Apocrypha of the Authorized Version (or King James, if you are American.)
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
Yes, the Apocrypha of the AV is not coextensive with the RC Deuterocanon.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Part of the problem is that LXX is not a single ancient manuscript with precisely-defined contents. Different chunks of LXX MSS have different books.

It is also my understanding that when Jerome (or Paula under Jerome's supervision) was translating the Vulgate, he wanted to leave the deuts out entirely but was overruled by the higher-ups. Nevertheless he (or she) didn't translate them, so the translation of the deuts in the Vulgate is actually the older Latin translation, the one the Vulgate was meant to supersede.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?
There is a handy table on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament
That's really very interesting, there seem to be a few odd additions that are very specific for particular churches.

I think most of us would be quite surprised to find the Book of Enoch or the Ascension of Isaiah turning up on a Sunday morning (although it's also worringly possible that nobody would notice [Ultra confused] )
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
2 Esdras does turn up in the C of E lectionary when All Saints Day is celebrated on a weekday in addition to the Sunday. I was present when Archbishop George Carey preached on such an occasion, remarking that 2 Esdras described liturgical splendour as would be the envy of the vicar of All Saints.

2 Esdras isn't in the RC Bible, as far as I can make out.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible. In one sense the biggest change would be for the RCC, who is the current "minimalist" (but for the hopeless Protestants). In another sense it might be easiest for the RCC, since she will only need to add, but would not need to remove anything. But I do think that it is a necessity for the RCC to update her OT canon to a "full Septuagint" of some description, ideally using that occasion for a truly ecumenical agreement with in particular the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The current RC canon is inconsistent as a halfway house, and the Protestant "Masoretic only" half thereof makes no historical or theological sense whatsoever. I have no doubts that in this particular case RCs should mostly learn from their Eastern brethren.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.
I think in general the NRSV translation is the most complete in terms of 'standard' English translations - and it is possible to buy the Apocryha (both with and without annotations) as a volume on its own. It will - of course - be missing books like Enoch and Jubilees.

If you are looking for something more exhaustive there's a two volume work of pseudopigrapha edited by James Charlesworth
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible. In one sense the biggest change would be for the RCC, who is the current "minimalist" (but for the hopeless Protestants). In another sense it might be easiest for the RCC, since she will only need to add, but would not need to remove anything. But I do think that it is a necessity for the RCC to update her OT canon to a "full Septuagint" of some description, ideally using that occasion for a truly ecumenical agreement with in particular the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The current RC canon is inconsistent as a halfway house, and the Protestant "Masoretic only" half thereof makes no historical or theological sense whatsoever. I have no doubts that in this particular case RCs should mostly learn from their Eastern brethren.
Concerning the Protestants, I agree. There is no reason why East and West should necessarily agree. There are differences between Churches in the East also. All it points to is that any canon of a product of local custom and that they more-or-less agree shows that it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
The ongoing Bible study group at our local Methodist church is deciding which books of the Apocrypha we want to study this year. I've been looking at various editions and translations, and for our uses I have been quite impressed with this ESV edition. The ESV translation reads considerably more naturally than some of the translations that I have examined, and the notes are geared toward the kinds of questions a Protestant might have when reading the text. FWIW

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Everything was so simple when I thought there was only one version of what books go in the Bible... [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The ongoing Bible study group at our local Methodist church is deciding which books of the Apocrypha we want to study this year. I've been looking at various editions and translations, and for our uses I have been quite impressed with this ESV edition. The ESV translation reads considerably more naturally than some of the translations that I have examined, and the notes are geared toward the kinds of questions a Protestant might have when reading the text.
If you simply want to have a cheap but decent version of the ESV with Apocrypha, OUP publishes a reasonable hardcover version for (at the time of writing) US$19.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you simply want to have a cheap but decent version of the ESV with Apocrypha, OUP publishes a reasonable hardcover version for (at the time of writing) US$19.
Good to know. Thanks for the lead.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible.
Hopeless in what regard? On having a common mind of what constitutes the canon of Scripture? Because I don't know of any variation on that within the different Protestant groups - although I admit we can sometimes be woefully inadequate in actually reading and expounding all of the canon with (say) an overemphasis on the Epistles compared to the minor Prophets.

Or simply in regard to engaging in big ecumenical councils? In which case the obvious question would be when was the last time the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches got together for an ecumenical council of any significance?

Yours etc,
Alan
Hopeless Protestant
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
If there's going to be a more authoritative text for the Apocrypha, there is an issue that needs to be addressed which wasn't around before. Until recently, there was only the LXX Greek version of Ecclesiasticus, which the grandson of Ben Sirach the original writer translated from Hebrew into Greek. Over the course of the last century or so, quite a lot of the original Hebrew text has turned up in various places.

The question is, what therefore do we now regard as the authentic text? Ad Orientem would, I suspect, simply say the Greek one as received. It isn't, though, quite as simple as that. The Greek version quite openly starts with an apology that this is only a translation and an imperfect one at that.

With the New Testament, virtually everyone except the KJV only people recognise that one should try to translate from the most reliable of the ancient manuscripts. With Ecclesiasticus, now we have access to what Ben Sirach's grandson translated from, which is the most reliable source? What intellectual tools does the collective wisdom of the church use to decide that?

Incidentally
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
... The only bad thing in the deuts, IMO, is Sirach. What an interminable load of unreadable twaddle.
Never heard therm called 'the deuts' before. Come what may, though, I could not disagree more. If one were forced to choose between Proverbs or Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs is the better book. Nevertheless, Ecclesiasticus is a lot more readable, and I suspect edifying, than quite a lot of Ezekiel, yet alone some of the more minor prophets.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
With the New Testament, virtually everyone except the KJV only people recognise that one should try to translate from the most reliable of the ancient manuscripts. With Ecclesiasticus, now we have access to what Ben Sirach's grandson translated from, which is the most reliable source?
Do we know that THIS Hebrew MS is the one BenBenBen Sirach translated from? Some of the Hebrew MSS found in Qumran have significant differences from the MT, at least in some places. Perhaps this is another such MS, in at least that it is different from the MS that the LXX Sirach was translated from.

It's quite a leap from "this is a Hebrew text of Sirach, and Sirach was translated from a Hebrew text" to "this is the Hebrew text that Sirach was translated from." Do we know that? How?
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
If Wikipedia be believed, the Qumran MSS are among a handful of Hebrew copies of parts of Ecclus, and broadly agree with the others.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Hopeless in what regard?
In tying their fortunes exclusively to the Masoretic scripture, over and against the clearly much wider traditional Christian usage, including that of Christ Himself (or at least of the evangelists compiling the NT). It is unclear just what scripture exactly was used by our Lord, the apostles, the evangelists and the first few generations of Christians. It is however clear that it wasn't just the later "Jewish standard" of the Masoretic scripture, and it is clear that the Septuagint is an important snapshot of the much larger scriptural diversity that went into the making of the NT. Furthermore, I personally believe that in the same way as the Latin Vulgate has been proven to be "inspired enough" by the usage among the Latin Church, so the Septuagint has been proven to be "inspired enough" by the usage among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. It would be nice if we could actually reconstruct what OT scripture Christ et al. were using. But chances are that we never will. The Masoretic tradition is just one shard though of that earlier fullness, which has the advantage of being in Hebrew. But the Vulgate and the Septuagint are other shards. They may have the disadvantage of being available only in translation but they clearly provide important complementary information, since the NT frequently agrees at least as much or more with them than with the Masoretic text. And what I mean with "inspired enough" is that the value both of the selection and the translation has been proven through well over a millennium of usage by Christians, including many saints.

Let's be clear here: I'm not simply dissing Protestants, though I firmly believe that their position makes least sense of them all. I do not think that the RCC has it right just yet. And I do not think that the Orthodox have it right either. "The Bible in its Traditions" project comes closest to what I consider to be a reasonably "reconstructive" approach to the text of scripture from all "traditional" sources. And I do think that while the RCC has been too minimalist in establishing an official canon, it is necessary that an official canon is agreed upon ecumenically, contrary to the co-existence of variations among the Orthodox.

Basically I think a final agreement should be reached between the RCs and the various Orthodox groups on what is "the" canon of scripture, and what is to be counted as apocryphal. I expect that this will require an extension of the RC canon, but a reduction of some of the canons of some of the Orthodox. And then the text of OT and NT should be reconstructed as much as we can by using complementary information from all relevant textual traditions, even if this means listing parallel variations. As far as the OT is concerned, Masoretic only is as inappropriate and insufficient as Septuagint only or Vulgate only. The former would establish the fixed canonical framework, the latter would be the proper way of filling it (which is open to some change if new discoveries are made).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
If Wikipedia be believed, the Qumran MSS are among a handful of Hebrew copies of parts of Ecclus, and broadly agree with the others.
"Broadly agree" is kinda vague. Thee LXX Isaiah broadly agrees with the MT, but violently disagrees in a couple of places.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Hopeless in what regard?
In tying their fortunes exclusively to the Masoretic scripture, over and against the clearly much wider traditional Christian usage, including that of Christ Himself (or at least of the evangelists compiling the NT). It is unclear just what scripture exactly was used by our Lord, the apostles, the evangelists and the first few generations of Christians. It is however clear that it wasn't just the later "Jewish standard" of the Masoretic scripture, and it is clear that the Septuagint is an important snapshot of the much larger scriptural diversity that went into the making of the NT.
I don't think this was all one-way traffic, was it? After all, there is St Jerome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way.

quote:
St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence the necessity of taking the Septuagint into consideration in any attempt to restore the text of the Old Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the translation made by St. Jerome.
The original dispute was not at all between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants. It was between 4th Century Jewish and Christian scholars about the accuracy and faithful transmission of the LXX.

Note I am not saying Jerome was right, simply that he illustrates that the ancient historical nature of the controversy concerning the Hebrew and Greek OT scriptures had nowt to do with Protestants.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
St Jerome went "native", incidentally on a Hebrew text which was not quite the Masoretic one. It is a rather understandable error in a translator who is caught up in the seminal importance of what he is doing, and who is necessarily relying on Jewish teachers for his information on the language and the appropriate text. The Church corrected St Jerome back then. This does not really motivate what Luther did over a millennium later.

It is noteworthy that apart from relegating the Deuterocanonicals to be Apocrypha, Luther also put into question seven NT books as "Antilegomena": Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, four of which (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) he put at the end of the NT as particularly questionable. This clearly mirrors the treatment of the OT "Apocrypha", and certainly would have resulted in their omission, just like the "Apocrypha" were dropped eventually after being moved out of place, by cheapskate publishing down the track. It should perhaps be mentioned that Luther also tried to remove Esther from the OT completely (rather than just its deuterocanonical parts).

The scriptural "hack and slash" of Luther concerning the NT (and concerning Esther in the OT) was resisted by other Protestants and luckily did not become normative. I think it is pretty clear that Luther's own motivation was from his doctrines to what scripture can possibly count as "proper". He didn't like James on faith and works, so it gets the chop, he didn't like Maccabees on the prayer for the dead, so it gets the chop, too. The difference is quite simply that other Protestants defended the integrity of the NT, but not of the OT (except for some of Esther). And the reason for that is indeed a repetition of St Jerome's mistake, only this time based on going "native" on the available Hebrew text of the then contemporary Jews, the Masoretic we are still stuck with today.

Protestants could have and should have known better back then, precisely because the Church had corrected St Jerome (presumably at a stage before the purported wholesale corruption of the Church they were protesting against!). It is however a mystery how Protestants cannot know better now. There simply is no doubt possible now that the "Christian scripture" used by Christ and his followers in the first few centuries was broader than the Masoretic text, and that the best source currently available for what is missing is the Septuagint (and there is a good possibility that some Septuagint version was in fact used in writing the NT).

We can now say with confidence that the RCC the Protestants protested against indeed had adopted some "traditions of men" rather than of God. The debate there is merely about whether the RC core was touched, or only the "outward facing" side, i.e., its Protestantism vs. Counter-Reformation-ism. All contemporary RCs (including the "trads") are children of the latter. I think we can now also say with confidence that the Protestant OT canon is due to "traditions of men" rather than of God. The debate there is merely whether only liminal cases were mishandled or whether the scriptural core was touched, i.e., its the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals as separated out "Apocrypha" vs. their full integration. I think it is strange however that Protestants stubbornly maintain a reduced OT canon. If they feel that they cannot adopt the Deuterocanonicals outright, then they should at least go "full Apocrypha". It's the Christian thing to do, it really is. Our OT scripture simply is not just that of the Masoretic Jews. We are not a branch of Rabbinic Judaism. There should not be a single Protestant bible on the market that does not have the "Apocrypha" IMNSHO.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Jerome went "native", incidentally on a Hebrew text which was not quite the Masoretic one. It is a rather understandable error in a translator who is caught up in the seminal importance of what he is doing, and who is necessarily relying on Jewish teachers for his information on the language and the appropriate text. The Church corrected St Jerome back then. This does not really motivate what Luther did over a millennium later.
True. But that doesn't get round the premise that those early Jewish scholars had a point. Opinions differ (and again nothing can be proved with certainty) about both the accuracy of the first translation and the faithfulness of its transmission.

And true also that the prophetic NT references are found more literally transposed from the Septuagint than from the Masoretic text.


Here's a brief quote from the Wiki article on the Septuagint.

quote:
Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained. Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.
I think that is a fair summary. Nobody is arguing that the rabbis with whom Jerome conversed didn't have an axe to grind. But mixed in with that were genuine concerns about the LXX purely on textual grounds.

I don't think either the Masoretic text, as we have it, or the Septuagint, as we have it, will always give definitive answers about the textual content. There's great value in looking at both. Purely as a matter of translation (rather than authority) I don't see the value in discounting either. And of course there is a massive amount of common ground and minimal differences in meaning.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I always thought the very existence of a council at Jamnia was questioned, that it is most likely mythical.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's why the Wiki article says "once attributed". I'm pretty sceptical about the historicity of a Jamnia council, from all I've read.

It's not central to the undoubted point that there was a reform process concerning the Masoretic text and that 4th C Jewish scholars were involved in that. Whatever you may think of his views, Jerome's discourses with rabbis are not disputed and provide evidence for both the reform of the Masoretic text and the concerns over the accuracy of the LXX.

[ 20. August 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
There are relatively clear errors in the Masoretic text:
There probably are more cases where an error can be convincingly demonstrated in the Masoretic (rather than just a difference to the Septuagint).

Furthermore, the Talmud explicitly refers to Sirach as scripture. Jesus celebrates Hanukkah (Feast of Dedication, John 10:22-23), but it is established in 1 Macc 4:52-59. There is a very clear prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 of Christ and His crucifixion, including a precise statement of the deadly test that the Jewish scribes and elders apply in Matt 27:41-43. The Ethiopian Jews maintain Deuterocanonicals as part of their scripture in the Ge'ez language. There are good indications here that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the "scriptural framework" of ancient Jewish life, just like the other books of the OT. There almost certainly were variations among various Jewish groups, but I think it is pretty clear that the group that became the Christians was not clearly "proto-Masoretic".
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Ethiopian Jews maintain Deuterocanonicals as part of their scripture in the Ge'ez language.
But no Lamentations - fascinating, never knew that.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

The scriptural "hack and slash" of Luther concerning the NT (and concerning Esther in the OT) was resisted by other Protestants and luckily did not become normative. I think it is pretty clear that Luther's own motivation was from his doctrines to what scripture can possibly count as "proper". He didn't like James on faith and works, so it gets the chop, he didn't like Maccabees on the prayer for the dead, so it gets the chop, too.
IngoB, what are you talking about? Luther most certainly did translate James--heck, he wrote a whole commentary on it too--and it's in the Luther Bible--no "chop" of any sort. Sheesh, he makes one crack about the book and suddenly you have him revising the canon! And I'm 90% sure the Apocrypha is in there too.

Despite your impression, Luther was really not a total lunatic.
 
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :
 
The World English Bible (WEB) includes sufficient Deuterocanonical books to satisfy most people. WEB (USA) or WEB (Proper English)
The WEB is a public Domain on line version which DV will replace the on line truncated version of the AV (King James) Bible.
Want the Septuagint? Here it is

Some shipmates might like to review these WEB versions. Being public domain there is no restriction on its use and it can be freely quoted. [Biased]
 
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :
 
Ooops. LXX link faulty.
Should be [URL= Here it is ]Septuagint[/URL]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I'm 90% sure the Apocrypha is in there too.
I'm no fan of Luther, but he did include the d-c books, but put them together between the OT and the NT, as followed in all protestant translations until probably 1599 with a Geneva version.

I find Ingo's post often very interesting and worthwhile. I just wish he could learn to be A eirenic and B succinct.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

More or less across the board, there is agreement amongst bible scholars that textual errors can be found in the Septuagint, the Masoretic text, the Greek NT. I think the typical approach these days is to look in detail at whatever versions are available, to see what the textual differences illuminate and to try to make some fair and considered judgments about text, context and meaning as a result.

The macro-level argument (this is inspired, that is not, this is better than that) has largely been left behind. In general, modern scholars replace that by approaches which say we have, and in many ways are fortunate to have, these different sources, preserved by different means. Let's see what we might learn from all of them.

Personally, that's the approach I prefer. Included in that is my view that discounting the deutero-canonicals for dogmatic reasons is pretty silly. I'm not sure how typical that view is amongst protestants. More generally, I think my interests in church history and my beliefs in the value of historical-critical approaches probably put me in a smallish minority in the nonco-evo clan in which I was raised. But I'm not alone in those interests.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Barnabas62

All that is fine with me as such, but I do think it remains insufficient. The idea that there is one central text, to be corrected by the other available manuscripts, is in my opinion mistaken. And that's so whatever you choose for your central text. The actual text we want does not exist any longer, we must reconstruct it best we can from what is left. And this means not just error correction, but also accepting actual differences as staking out an area of textual possibility.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Oddly, in addition to there being books in the LXX that the Hebrew Bible doesn't contain, there are also passages, but not complete books, which are in the Hebrew but not in the LXX. As far as I know, nobody in the west has ever suggested those bits aren't scripture or shouldn't be read.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Barnabas62

All that is fine with me as such, but I do think it remains insufficient. The idea that there is one central text, to be corrected by the other available manuscripts, is in my opinion mistaken. And that's so whatever you choose for your central text. The actual text we want does not exist any longer, we must reconstruct it best we can from what is left. And this means not just error correction, but also accepting actual differences as staking out an area of textual possibility.
We may have a Host around our necks for getting too Purgatorial but I think you are right on this point as well! There is no doubt that the doctrine of scripture must be integrated with the doctrine of the church. I think the notion of a recoverable "paper Pope" is a mistaken understanding which arose as a result of the Reformation disputes.

[ 21. August 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
As I've said on previous threads, we do not read,
"And the Word became paper and dwelt among us".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As I've said on previous threads, we do not read,
"And the Word became paper and dwelt among us".
Quotes file.

Host note: fixed code

[ 22. August 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The deal is ever increasing circles of decreasing 'authority'.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0