There are seven-plus books found in the Catholic Old Testament that are not included in the Protestant Old Testament. They are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, and the additions to Daniel and Esther. Protestants call them the apocrypha. Catholics call them the deuterocanonical books, deuterocanonical meaning “second canon.” The word apocrypha is more confusing because in other contexts it can be used to mean all kinds of Christian and Jewish writings, both orthodox and heretical, but I will use the word apocrypha in this paper for two reasons: I am writing this at the request of Protestants, and it has fewer syllables.
Here is a very brief description of each book in the apocrypha:
1 & 2 Maccabees: History. They tell the story of the successful Jewish revolt against the Greeks in the 2nd century BC, which includes the origins of Hanukkah. They are considered solid history.
Wisdom: Wisdom literature. Reads like Proverbs.
Sirach: Wisdom literature. Reads like Proverbs.
Baruch: A letter from Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch after the beginning of the Babylonian captivity.
Judith: How Judith saves the Israelites from the Assyrians in a Samarian village.
Tobit: Fun story about a faithful Jewish family in the northern kingdom after the Assyrian invasion. Just remember never to let a bird poop in your eye.
Additions to Daniel: The prayer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, and the stories of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon.
Additions to Esther: Adds some theological commentary.
The New Testaments of Catholics and Protestants are identical.
Where do the apocryphal books come from?
To overgeneralize, the apocryphal books were written in Greek by Jews during the 400 years before the time of Christ. They fill in the oft-noted time gap between the end of the Protestant Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament.
What did the Old Testament canon look like at the time of Christ?
The Old Testament canon was still open at the time of Christ. That is the main underlying reason why different Christians have different Old Testament canons. There are three parts to Jewish scripture: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The books of the Law and the Prophets were considered closed by the time of Jesus, but the Writings were still open. The Writings varied from place to place, including books that would be included in all Bibles, such as Psalms and Song of Songs, books that would be included in Catholic Bibles like 1 and 2 Maccabees, and books that would be included in neither of the two, such as Psalm 151, Enoch, and 3 and 4 Maccabees.
One practical reason why the canon remained open for so long was because there were no bound books at the time, only scrolls. Hence, you were unlikely to find the exact same collection of sacred scrolls in every synagogue, in every village. There were regional variations. Decisions on which books were truly authoritative came with time and discernment.
What is the earliest historical basis for the Protestant and Catholic Old Testaments?
The Protestant Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible. It contains all of the Old Testament books that were originally written in the Hebrew language. In the time of Jesus, it was widely used by the Hebrew-speaking Jews of Judea.
The Catholic Old Testament is the Septuagint, the authorized Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. It includes all of the books in the Hebrew Bible as well as several books originally written in Greek, after Greek had become the international language. In the time of Jesus, the Septuagint was widely used by the Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora, from Egypt to Greece to Rome.
It is very important to remember that this description is a vast oversimplification – there were not two closed canons at the time of Christ. The Greek and Hebrew collections of scriptures themselves had different tables of contents in various places.
The important point to take away from this is that both the Catholic and Protestant Old Testament canons that exist today were within the range of acceptability to Jews 2000 years ago.
Which is quoted more in the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint?
Both are quoted extensively by the authors of the New Testament. Jesus quotes both. The Septuagint is quoted somewhat more than the Hebrew Bible, but that is only to be expected since the New Testament, like the Septuagint, is written in Greek.
Which was used more often in the first couple centuries of Christianity, the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint?
The Septuagint was used among early Christians almost exclusively, certainly after the first few years of Christianity when Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews began joining the faith. This was because Greek was the international language, and the Hebrew language was all but unknown outside of Judea. Latin-speaking Christians used various Latin translations of the Septuagint.
How did the Hebrew Bible get 39 books?
Jewish religious leaders closed their canon over the course of the second century AD. (This is often described as happening at the "Council of Jamnia," but the importance and even the existence of such a council is very speculative.) The Hebrew Bible has the same books in it as the Protestant Old Testament, and it remains the canon of scripture for the Jews to this day. The Jews purposely rejected the Septuagint translation and all books written in Greek. Some of their reasons were:
- to reject the large number of heretical writings in general circulation
- to shore up Jewish culture and religion after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
- to distance themselves from the Christians, who had essentially co-opted the Septuagint.
Christians of the era did not view the closing of the Jewish canon of scripture as binding on Christians, but they were influenced by it.
It is worth keeping in mind that during the second century, Christians themselves did not see the canon as a very important issue in the grand scheme of things. They were more focused on the big questions like, “How can we convince the heretical Marcionites to use the Old Testament at all?” “How can Jesus be both God and the Son of God?” “How can we not get killed by lions?”
How did the Septuagint get 46 books?
The canon of the Septuagint was effectively closed in the late fourth century. The African Synod of Hippo in 393 affirmed the 46-book Septuagint and the New Testament as Scripture, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. This is the canon of the Catholic Bible as it exists down to this day. The Councils of Carthage were led by Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. It is possible that the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I officially affirmed the same canon of Scripture as well, but the evidence is not clear.
In 383, Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin. Jerome, who was living in Jerusalem, preferred the 39-book canon of the Hebrew Bible, viewing it as more authentic, but he was essentially overruled by Pope Damasus I and force of opinion among the other bishops. Jerome then translated Tobit and Judith himself and used Old Latin texts for the rest of the apocrypha, but he also wrote an introduction to the Old Testament where he expressed his view that the apocryphal books should have secondary status.
For the next thousand years, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible of Western Christendom. It included both the apocrypha and Jerome’s commentary. Hence, medieval Christians had the awareness that the apocrypha were perhaps not quite equal to the other books, but in all practical matters they treated and quoted the apocrypha as Scripture.
So the fourth century councils in North Africa canonized the 46-book Septuagint. But why?
Presumably it was the most widely used and acceptable canon in that time and place.
I have the impression that earlier Christians – I’m talking second century – mostly preferred a shorter Old Testament. Bishop Melito of Sardis (c. 170 AD) is the first Christian we know of who recorded what books he thought belonged in the Old Testament. He chose the “Protestant 39 books” minus Esther, perhaps plus Wisdom. I speculate that second-century Christians preferred a shorter Old Testament because they were still relatively close to their Jewish roots, they were influenced by the closing of the Jewish canon of Scripture, and the more recently written books were less widely circulated.
But by the time of Augustine – the late fourth century – most Christians used a longer Old Testament. I speculate that this is because the apocrypha had been around long enough by then that they had acquired the authority of antiquity, were widely read and approved, and were integrated into public worship.
I support my speculations by looking to the history of the Eastern Orthodox. You see, the North African councils were only locally binding – they were not ecumenical councils. And the opinions of Pope Damasus, Augustine, and Jerome concerning the canon had little to no influence in the Greek-speaking East. I am not certain when or if the Orthodox closed their canon of Scripture, but if they did it was much later than in the West. As such, the standard Orthodox Old Testament is a 49 book Septuagint, though different Eastern Christian groups might include another book or three. Hence, a few more books entered the canon through wide use and antiquity. The Latin Vulgate also included those 3 additional books, by the way, but in an appendix. Christians in the West didn’t regard them as scripture.
Why did the Protestant Reformers decide to use the Hebrew Bible instead of the Septuagint as the basis for the Old Testament?
The era of the Reformation was also the dawn of modern textual analysis. This is the era when scholars debunked the Donation of Constantine, an eighth century forgery in which Constantine supposedly gave the pope temporal authority over the Roman Empire. This is the era when Biblical scholars realized that the venerable Latin Vulgate was far from a perfect translation, the most famous error being where Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with “horns” on his head instead of “light.”
More to the point, this is the era when Biblical scholars in Western Europe started learning Greek and Hebrew and had the opportunity to examine the Biblical texts in their original languages. And when they looked at the Hebrew Bible, they discovered that – gasp! – it had only 39 books. I think from that point on the Protestant Reformers were inclined to dismiss the apocrypha as "just another late Catholic addition to the faith." Like Jerome, they viewed the Hebrew Bible as more authentic in the selection of books as well as the language.
Another factor was the doctrinal implications of the Apocrypha. Now, there are surprisingly few doctrinal implications in the Apocrypha, but the biggest one is prayers for the dead and Purgatory. 2nd Maccabees commands prayers for the dead, which strongly implies that the dead benefit from our prayers – hence, Purgatory.
In 1519, only two years after the 95 Theses, Martin Luther was debating a fellow Catholic priest, Johannes Eck, who was defending the doctrine of Purgatory. When Eck quoted 2nd Maccabees at him, Luther replied that he did not recognize 2nd Maccabees as Scripture. Was Luther motivated by a reverence for the Hebrew Bible or a dislike of the doctrine of Purgatory? I don’t know. I venture to guess both, in that order.
How have Catholics viewed the apocrypha since the Reformation?
The Council of Trent revisited the topic of the canon of Scripture in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, and in 1563 it reaffirmed the use of the traditional 46-book Old Testament. Catholics today continue to consider the apocrypha as the inspired word of God and an integral part of the Bible.
On a practical level, none of the apocryphal books are anywhere near as “important” as the Gospel of John, or Romans, but I think it’s easy to make the case that 1 Maccabees is a more important book than, say, Nahum. (My husband Frank, an evangelical, agrees that 1 Maccabees is vital for understanding the book of Daniel, his favorite book of the Bible, but he insists that I need to develop a greater appreciation for Nahum, because he also likes fire and brimstone sermons.)
That said, there’s some very powerful and irreplaceable material in the apocrypha. Wisdom 2:12-20 is considered to be a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ:
“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
How have Protestants viewed the apocrypha since the Reformation?
Protestants do not consider the apocrypha to be the inspired word of God, and none would classify it with the rest of the Bible. However, early Protestant Bibles such as the Luther Bible, the Geneva Bible (supported by John Calvin and John Knox), and the 1611 King James Bible included the apocrypha in a middle section. Luther and the Anglicans believed that it was good and useful reading, but not to be used for the purposes of doctrine. The Anglicans have always had the option of reading it in their church services.
The apocryphal books were dropped from Protestant Bibles over the course of centuries due to gradual shifts in public opinion. Most Anglicans and Lutherans used Bibles with the apocrypha in a middle section until the beginning of the twentieth century, while the Calvinists and other more evangelical Protestants dropped the apocrypha long before. The evangelical-leaning British and Foreign Bible Society, for example, ceased to distribute Bibles containing the apocrypha in 1825.
I think that while the twentieth century saw the greatest division yet between the Protestant 66-book Bible and the Catholic 73-book Bible, the separation between the two is diminishing somewhat, at least in the US. American Catholics often purchase Protestant Bibles because they are more readily available and have far more choice of translations. American Protestants, especially serious Bible readers or seminary students, often purchase one of the newer study Bibles that once again contain the apocrypha in a middle section.
---------------------------------------
I hope this was informative and fair! I welcome all corrections and comments!
My main sources were
Joseph Lienhard’s The Bible, the Church and Authority, chapter 5.
Karl Joseph von Hefele's A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, Volume 2.
Wikipedia articles, especially “Biblical canon," “Development of the Old Testament canon,” and "Council of Rome."
Eusebius’s Church History
Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana
And a whole host of websites, some more trustworthy than others.
For anyone that really, REALLY wants to know more about canon formation, The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James Sanders, is a 700-page collection of essays that expresses the current scholarship. It is available on Amazon or in academic libraries.
No comments:
Post a Comment