When was the apocrypha canonized?

[Guest]

In a discussion with a Roman Catholic friend, he was saying that the apocryha was removed from the original canonization. In all my readings (which, admittedly, are from Protestant writers), the apocrypha was added after the reformation in the 16th century.

Which is the true history?

[Guest]

Greetings!
I am afriad your Protestant sources are either misinformed or are misrepresenting the facts. The oldest extant copies of the complete Bible, also happen to be the most ancient editions of the New Testament in the original Koine Greek. They all date from the early to mid fourth century A.D. And they all contain the Books you call the Apocrapha, as well as some others as well.
The Jewish Scriptures (Tanakh) are divided into three sections. The Torah (5 Book of Moses), the Neviim (the Prophets) and Ketuviim (the Writings). Now the books you are questioning are from the last section called the Ketuviim.
Before the time of Christ 72 Jewish scholars translated the Jewish Tanakh into Koine Greek for the Jewish People in the Greaco-Roman world. This was accomplished over a span of 20 years in Alexandria, Egypt. This Greek Tanakh came to be known as the Septuagint (LXX) Bible. The Hebrew Text and Canon that was used to make it is older and larger than the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh adopted by Jewry since 90 A.D. The Modern Hebrew Tanakh and Canon is a post Second Temple Jewish revision.
The LXX is the Bible used by Messiah and his Fellow Galilaean Disciples, and it is this Greek Bible that is cited in the Greek New Testament over 97% of the time. The other quotes are either paraphrases, allusions or variant readings. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain these "extra books" in their Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek Library. We now know that these books were in the Tanakh, and later removed from it after 90 A.D. Also the LXX was banned within Jewry after 90 A.D. also, as well as all followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
In the Church, the first Bible was the complete LXX O.T. as well as it's Aramaic twin. This was later merged with the Greek New Testament to form the Christian Bible. This was then translated into Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic etc. Every Book of the LXX was cited by the Church Fathers as Scripture. It was due to Jewish rejection of the Christian Bible and Canon that there arose questions about the use of the LXX Bible...but this was officially stopped by local Synods in the East and West. The most famous Synods were those of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th Century. They all enumerated and defined the Old Testament Canon and LXX text as the one used by Messiah and the Apostles, and the very Scripture received by the Church through their ministries. These councils also defined the New Testament Canon. Also, these Councils rejected the unbelieving Jewish authorities and their denunciation of the ancient Jewish LXX Bible, and even went so far as to accuse the Jewish Rabbis of tampering with the Hebrew text and Canon. Now we know from archeological finds that there is merit to these positions of the Synods.
These Synods were ratified and adopted by the whole Church East and West. It was not until the Reformation and the Protestant discovery that the Modern Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament differed textually and numerically from the Old Testament in use among Christianity that the LXX text and Canon were called into question. Even so, all Protestant Bibles contained the full Old Testament Canon until the 18th Century. At that time the Puritans removed these "Greek" Apocryphal books from their 1611 Bibles. The 1611 did contain them, and I have a copy to prove it.
But the Protestants forgot that the Masoretic Hebrew is not the Text used by Messiah and the Church, and a quick search of NT citations of the OT will in comparison with the OT based upon the Masoretic Hebrew show the clear disagreement. The Hebrew now says a "young lady (Alma)" will be discovered pregnant, not a "virgin (betolta)" Messiah is quoted as citing the Aramaic Psalm 22 when He said,"Elee, Elee, Lamana Sabaq-tani." But the Hebrew has "Eli, Eli, Lamana Azbaq-tani". All of the Messianic quotes are from the LXX or translations of the Aramaic Text.

I accept the complete Greek Bible, as the Greek New Testament proceeds from the Greek Old Testament, and they agree fully. I also accept the complete Aramaic Bible too, as it is a faithful translation of both the Ancient Hebrew Tanakh and Canon as well as that of the Greek New Testament.

Now the Vatican held a Council at Trent which denounced Protestantism and their rejection of the Ancient Bible of the Church. They did reaffirm the canonical status of those books rejected by Protestantism in Favor of the modern Jewish Hebrew Text. But this re-affirmation did not make these books apart of the Bible, it ratified what had been accepted since the time of Christ in all the Churches from Great Britian to India, and from the Baltic Sea to the heart of Ethiopia.
It is only the Protestants who have switched the Old Testament of ancient Judaism and the Ancient Church for a late Jewish revised Hebrew Text which contradicts much of the New Testament. Now modern Protestant Scholars are recognizing this since the Dead Sea Scroll finds, and are taking a new look at the LXX. And Many English Old Testaments based upon the Masoretic Hebrew adopt the LXX readings in passages that are cited in the New Testament, thus restoring the unity somewhat. Hopefully they will restore the LXX as the basis for all translations and the canon.

+Ken

[Guest]

prisetly,

I was raised catholic but never born again, infact I was very suprised MANY years later to know JESUS was alive. The priests spoke in latin making many signs..........Are you catholic? If so, what about call no man on earth father? What about telling a priest sins? Mada'm Guyon says
we can go straight to JESUS.......She was severly punished by knowing truth. The catholic church to me is babylon, confusion
I will pray for your health!

A friend

[Guest]

The Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek in the third century B.C. contained all of the Apocrypha except 2 Esdras. The Septuagint translation was the Bible of the early Christians. They quoted from the books now known as “the Apocrypha” as having equal authority with the rest of the Old Testament..

In Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Old Testament, these books are dispersed thoughout the Old Testament. The practice of collecting them into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 A.D.
The Apocrypha was part of the manuscripts used in the translation of the King James version.

The Roman Catholics are not the only ones who retained the Apocrypha in their Bible. Luther’s translation had it, and the early Anabaptists retained it. The Hutterites who have always used Luther’s translation, retain the Apocrypha in their Bibles to this day.

The concept of a "Canon of Scripture" did not appear until Athanasius of the fourth century in reaction to the proliferation gnostic writings purporting to be apostolic writings.

The early Christians used several "non-canonical" books in their church readings, including Clement's letter to the Corinthians. This letter was written shortly after the death of Paul and Peter. The author is believed to be the fellow helper of the apostle Paul, who is mentioned in one of Paul's letters.

In early Christian days, there were also "canonical" books whose authenticity was questioned ------ 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

[_Ely]

Having read through Priestly1's post, all I can say is woah!!! Does anyone have a Protestant response to this? Just now, I asked my pastor about this issue and he gave some very weak answers as to why he doesn't accept the apocrypha as scripture.

So, any thoughts anyone?

One question I have for paidon (and priestly if he's still around) is, why would the Reformers reject the deutero-canonical/apocryphal books? I know one of them has some stuff about pergatory in it, but what about the others?

Ely

btw: I've foud the following article to be very informative and quite abalanced on this issue: http://www.probe.org/content/view/25/77/

[Guest]

This is an interesting comparison I found on Wikipedia. I don't think it answers your question but it's a great resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

I think Priestly already mentioned the major reason why Protestants reject the Apocrypha when he said:

It was due to Jewish rejection of the Christian Bible and Canon that there arose questions about the use of the LXX Bible

At least, the impression that I am under is that if the Apocrypha wasn't good enough for the Jews to include in their 'Bible' then we shouldn't either. I suppose Jesus using the LXX and the fact that Jews also reject the NT writings may counter this a little though.

I believe the Apocrypha may be quoted or at least alluded to in Jude or something like that, but Jesus didn't quote from it, did He?

Thats my 2 'uneducated' cents.

Les

[Guest]

Greetings!
I am afriad your Protestant sources are either misinformed or are misrepresenting the facts. The oldest extant copies of the complete Bible, also happen to be the most ancient editions of the New Testament in the original Koine Greek. They all date from the early to mid fourth century A.D. And they all contain the Books you call the Apocrapha, as well as some others as well.

And there's the problem. The only extant versions date from the early to mid 3th Century AD.

Which means that they are not necessarily a reliable source for determining the canon of the original Jewish Old Testament.

Fortunately, Josephus (writing in the 1st Century AD) wrote a list of the books included in the Jewish canon of his day.

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

• Josephus (c. 38-95) enumerates 22 books, which he divides as follows:
  
  5 books of Moses;
  13 histories, containing the history of Israel from Moses' death down to Artaxerxes I., written by the Prophets; and
  4 remaining books consisting of hymns and admonitions.
  
  "It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them" ("Contra Ap." i. 8 ).
  
  It is evident that Josephus, instead of counting Ruth and Lamentations as separate books, combined them with Judges and Jeremiah, respectively.
  
  As historical books he considered all that narrated anything historical, and thus included Job. He considered Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes non-historical.
  
  No other arrangement would have been possible for Josephus; for it is known from Talmudic and Midrashic literature that in his time, when the Tannaites flourished most, all the now familiar books were considered canonical.
  
  For various interpretations of Josephus' narrative, see Strack, l.c. p. 752.

Josephus; list does not include any of the apocryphal literature, proving that those books had not been accepted by the Jews and were never included in the Jewish canon.

Indeed, Josephus even tells us as much himself:

• From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets.
  
  There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.
  
  Versus Apion

As far as Josephus is concerned: (a) the canon was closed after the time of Artaxerxes, (b) the canon was subsequently accepted as authoritative; (c) it has remained unaltered since then, and (d) a great deal of time has passed since the canon was closed.

[_Ely]

Hi Evangelion, thanks for the input. Josephus' testimony is indeed important. However, just three counter-points to consider:

- Why is Josephus' list more authoratative than the countless Ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers who together accepted the deuero-canonical books a sscirpture?

- Also, as correct me if I'm wrong, but Josephus was an unbelieving pharisee. As the Messianic movement grew, the unbelieving pharisees were getting more and more exasperated with the use of the LXX to show Jesus' messiahship (e.g. the "parthenos" of Isaiah 7:14). As a result, once they had become the dominant group in the unbelieving majority of Jews, they completely rejected the LXX in AD90. Could Josephus not simply have been reflecting this pharisaical bias against the LXX?

Ely

[Guest]

And there's the problem. The only extant versions date from the early to mid 3th Century AD.

That may be true.

Which means that they are not necessarily a reliable source for determining the canon of the original Jewish Old Testament.

That they are not a reliable source for determining the "canon" the original Jewish OT, does not follow from this fact.

The Septuagint in its original form was translated during the reign of Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C.). At first it contained only the first five books of Moses. Over the next two centuries the rest of the books were added, including the Apocrypha.