| 3rd
February, 2006
JIM
REIHER
The Apocrypha is the title we give a collection of
books, and parts of books, that Roman Catholics have in their
Old Testament, but which Protestants usually reject as not
being the Word of God. It is, specifically, a collection of
a dozen books or additions to books. It includes some famous
ones, like: First and Second Maccabees,
the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus
(not Ecclesiastes which is in the Protestant Bible),
and additions to the books of Daniel and Esther. It is all
about extra Old Testament books and writings.
 |
PICTURE:
Linda B (www.sxc.hu)
"There is nothing too surprising about the existence
of the Apocrypha: there were lots of 'religious' books
written by people all through the centuries, just
as there still are today."
|
That
last point is worth highlighting: It is about the composition
of the Old Testament. It does not refer to New Testament books.
Catholics and Protestants agree on what makes up the New Testament.
There is nothing too surprising about the existence of the
Apocrypha: there were lots of 'religious' books written by
people all through the centuries, just as there still are
today. In fact, there are more old religious books written
by Jews than even the OT and the Apocrypha (Jude in the New
Testament quotes from two such other books: The Assumption
of Moses and The Book of Enoch.) But the collection
called the Apocrypha is the most famous and hotly-debated
material.
On a different point: if you hear people talk about the Gospel
of Thomas or the Epistle of Barnabas do not
mix that up with the Apocrypha. They are different again.
They are a part of extra-religious books that were written
in the early centuries of the Church - and they were soon
rejected by the early church as not being the Word of God
either. So there are extra Biblical writings that relate to
both testaments. But the Apocrypha relates specifically to
the Old Testament.
Some people ask why it is that Protestants don’t use
the Apocrypha. This is a good question (and it has a good
answer). The Catholics accept and use the extra books or extra
material for some existing books. Some early church fathers
like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the great Augustine, quote
from them and treat them the same as the rest of the Bible.
Some early Christian manuscripts of the Bible have parts of
the Apocrypha in them. Even the original King James Bible
when first printed in England had the Apocrypha in it (and
that was mainly for Anglicans at the time). How come we do
not use those extra books now?
The overwhelming reason why we reject the Apocrypha from the
Bible, is that the Bible of the Jews in Jesus' day did not
contain the extra books. Jesus' Bible was the same books as
the Protestant Old Testament, not the Catholic Old Testament.
And the Old Testament was the Jews collection of books and
other writings, originally (and it still is). The Jews should
have a say in what was and is in it.
WHAT
DOES APOCRYPHA ACTUALLY MEAN?
The
actual word "apocrypha" originates from
a Greek word, apokrypha. This literally meant "the
hidden things", and was used as a broad title
for books not considered to be truly scriptural. Technically,
not much was really "hidden" because the
books were always there and could be accessed and
read, just as they are today. Nevertheless the term
stuck, and despite being used in slightly different
ways (to refer to different collections of extra-Biblical
books), the most common useage is how we are using
it here in this article.
|
It
was Christians (not Jews) who put the Apocrypha in the Bible.
Also, just as there is a short list of impressive church father
names who accepted the use of the Apocrypha, there is an equally
impressive list of early church fathers who did not. Two extraordinary
fathers who rejected the Apocrypha were Athanasius and Jerome.
Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin
and he ended up producing the Latin Vulgate. His research
found that the Apocrypha was simply not considered to be inspired
Scripture for the Jews. He wanted to keep the Apocrypha out
of his Vulgate. (That desire was overruled by the Pope.) Furthermore
the Catholics did not make the Apocrypha books 'canon' (officially
recognised them as the Word of God) until after the Reformation
in the 1500's and they arguably did so to help them fight
the Protestants on issues like prayers for the dead. But overwhelmingly
important is the fact that as far as scholarship can work
ou, Jesus did not use them in his Bible. They were not seen
as sacred, inspired scripture by religious Jews in the time
of Christ.
When all is said and done, they are not “bad”
reading. In fact, some of the stories are very edifying. Daniel's
additional chapters - 13 and 14 - contain terrific stories
that have great morals in them. But they are still called
“Apocrypha” because we just don’t think
they really happened or were in the Holy Book list of the
Jews at the time of Christ. They are still edifying reading.
They are not unlike good Christian books we might buy at a
Christian book shop today. They should be taken with a grain
of salt and scepticism, but not thrown away! Enjoy them, but
don’t base your doctrine on them alone. Be inspired
and encouraged by them, but don’t believe every detail
as if historically accurate on all counts.
Jim
Reiher (BA (double major in history), BA in Theology, Dip
Ed. MA in Theology (Hons)) is a full time lecturer for Tabor
College Victoria, lecturing in church history and New Testament;
and also has speciality interest areas in women’s ministry,
creative ministry, and the New Age movement. His views are
not necessarily those of other Tabor faculty members or of
Tabor College.
Got an issue you're struggling with? Simply send an
email to editor@sightmagazine.com.au.
MORE OF LIFE'S TOUGH QUESTIONS click here...
|
