Jovial (10 Aug 2014)
"Correcting Some Errors about the Apocrypha  "

What is the "Apocrypha" and why is it not in all Bibles"?  There are misconceptions about this.  Some of you might consider some of the books inspired.  Jude quotes from Enoch and this is one of the most popular books that some Christians accept as inspired.  I am not saying it is or isn't.  But I do think they are all worth reading.

The Early church NT "Canon" was basically;

  • 28 books in the NT among Old Latin copies .  Until Jerome in the 4th century, most Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament included Paul's letter to Laodicea.    But Latin was the only language it was preserved in.  The Greeks rejected it as did the Aramaic speaking Church.
  • 27 books in the Greek NT and Vulgate Latin.
  • 22 books in the Aramaic NT version - which included most of he middle east during early Christian times.  This canon still exists in parts of the Mid-East today, rejecting Revelation, 2 Peter, 2/3 John and Jude.

Many other books where in early Greek manuscripts of the NT, such as the Shepherd of Mermes, Barnabas, etc.  But eventually the 27 book canon was settled on by a criteria of first hand witnesses; Writings from First Hand witnesses or their assistants were permitted.  Paul was deemed a 1st hand witness.  His accomplish, Luke, was permitted as was Peter's assistant Mark.

For the Tanach ("Old Testament")

  • Most "Apocryphal" books from the 1st Testament were accepted by early Christian writers as legitimate, despite the arguments to the contrary by many Protestants today.  I gave Irenaeus's acceptance of Esdras as one example, though I could show many more. The Didache also seems to rely on Esdras, and Ephraim also makes some comments that could be coming from there.  They were accepted by early century Christians, The Roman Church, and Greek Orthodox. 
  • They were rejected by Jews because no copies were preserved in Hebrew.  Some people have mistakenly accused the entire of apocrypha of not being WRITTEN in Hebrew.  That is not the case.  In many cases, books WERE written in Hebrew, but just not preserved in Hebrew.  I gave an example from Esdras at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/jovial83.htm of how it is clear Esdras must have been written in Hebrew since confusion over a single letter makes or breaks multiple translations we see in the Latin tradition.  Multiple translations of the same Hebrew source text is clearly to blame for the variants seen in the translated versions of Esdras. 
    • Some books were NOT written in Hebrew.  I said "some".  That does not mean that ALL of them were not written in Hebrew.  1st and 2nd Macabees probably were written in Hebrew, and a Hebrew version of 1 Mac has surfaced, although it was not available to 1st century Jews when they rejected it as "Scripture".  But at least 1 , possible 2, were not written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Many of our oldest COMPLETE manuscripts of the Bible from the earliest times include the Apocrypha.  Homever, some manuscripts are just the Gospels.  Some are just the letters.  But many manuscripts from the earliest times includes books we would reject today as canon.

Let me correct a few misperceptions that exist about the Apocrypha

MISCONCEPTION TRUTH
That neither Yeshua or His disciples ever quoted from the Apocrypha

Actually

  • The BIBLE ITSELF quotes from the Apocrypha. Jude quotes Enoch.
  • Many things Yeshua cited in Matthew 24 are mentioned in Esdras, which was written before Matthew.
  • The Letter to the Hebrews alludes to an Apocryphal account of Isaiah being sawed in two.
No early manuscripts of the bible contain the Apocrypha. This is false.  In fact, most complete sets do.  For example, the three oldest complete manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus) all have the Apocrypha.  Nearly all pre-Vulgate complete sets have it.
No books were written in Hebrew. Some were, some were not.  None were PRESERVED in Hebrew at the time they were canonized.
That they teach conflicting things. Some might.  The various books of Macabees have Antiochus dieing in different ways.  Obviously, at least one is in error.  But some people view the accepted Scriptures as contradictory, not because they are, but because they do not correctly understand the content.
the promote immoral activity Often they record immoral historical accounts, but that is not the same as promoting the ideology of something immoral.  Many non-Christians have lodged the same accusation against our accepted canon because they have ignored the context and that not everything recorded as having happened is necessarily recorded because the writer thought it was a godo thing.  The bible records Solomon's suicide/mass assasination, but does not say it was approved by God.

Now I am NOT saying the Apocrypha is all inspired.  I am not even trying to promote any one book of it as inspired.  But I am saying that we should not view every debate in a Catholic vs Protestant manner and side with Martin Luther on every issue.  You should read the apocrypha at least once in your life.  Maybe more often.  Many Christians accepted them as Scripture, and you should study some of the books and find out WHY many believers did accept them.  They were written by men of faith and are at least as valuable as the latest book in your local Christian bookstore. 

Shalom,

Joe