10 The Apocrypha, Roger T. Beckwith
10
Roger T. Beckwith
Larger editions of the English Bible—from the Great Bible of Tyndale and Coverdale (1539) onward—have often included a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament titled “The Apocrypha,” consisting of additional books and substantial parts of books. The Latin Vulgate Bible translated by Jerome (begun AD 382, completed 405) had placed them in the Old Testament itself—some as separate items and some as attached to or included in the biblical books of Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In Roman Catholic translations of the Bible, such as the Douay Version and the Jerusalem Bible, these items are still placed in their pre-Reformation positions. In Protestant translations, however, the Apocrypha is either omitted altogether or grouped in a separate section.
HOW JEROME’S VULGATE CAME TO CONTAIN THE APOCRYPHA
In distinguishing the Apocrypha from the Old Testament books, the Protestant translators were not doing something completely novel but were carrying out more thoroughly than ever before the principles on which Jerome (AD 345–420) had made his great Latin Vulgate translation of the Old Testament. The Vulgate was translated from the original Hebrew. But a translation prior to the Vulgate, the Old Latin translation, had been made from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (or LXX). At some stage, early or late, additional books and parts of books, which were not in the Hebrew Bible, had found their way into the Greek Old Testament, and from there into the Old Latin version. Jerome retained these in his new translation, the Latin Vulgate, but added prefaces at various points to emphasize that they were not true parts of the Bible, and he called them by the name “apocrypha” (Gk. apokrypha, “those having been hidden away”). In accordance with his teaching—and with the understanding of the Old Testament canon held by Jesus, the New Testament authors, and the first-century Jews (see chap. 8)—the sixteenth-century Protestant translators did not consider those writings part of the Old Testament but gathered them together in a separate section, to which they gave Jerome’s name, “The Apocrypha.”
Jerome’s reason for choosing this name is not readily apparent. He probably took a hint from Origen, who a century and a half earlier had stated that the Jews applied this name to the most esteemed of their noncanonical books. Origen and Jerome were two of the most distinguished students of Judaism among the Fathers, so it would be natural for them to use the term in a Jewish sense, though applying it to the noncanonical Jewish books that were most esteemed by Christians. Jews would never destroy respected religious books, but, if unfit for use, such books would be hidden away and left to decay naturally. So “hidden” came to mean “highly esteemed, though uncanonical.”
Jerome did not actually confine his name “apocrypha” to Jewish books but used it also of noncanonical Christian books, such as The Shepherd of Hermas, which were likewise popular religious reading among Christians. The modern expression “New Testament Apocrypha,” for late works that imitate New Testament literature, is similar.
HOW THE GREEK AND LATIN TRANSLATIONS CAME TO CONTAIN THE APOCRYPHA
How the Greek Old Testament, and by consequence the Latin Old Testament, came to contain apocryphal items has been variously understood. Codex Alexandrinus (the great fifth-century AD manuscript of the whole Greek Bible) was printed and published in the eighteenth century. Because it contained the Apocrypha, the editors in the eighteenth century assumed that the Old Testament of this Christian manuscript had been copied from Jewish manuscripts equally inclusive, and that consequently the Apocrypha must have been in the LXX translation, and in the canon of the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria who produced it from pre-Christian times (though not in the Bible or canon of the Semitic-speaking Jews of Palestine). This hypothesis held the field for a long time, and a further assumption—that most of the apocryphal books had been composed in Greek, outside Palestine—was made to support it.
All the elements of this theory are now known to be false. (1) Leather manuscripts large enough to contain the whole Old Testament did not exist among either Christians or Jews until the latter part of the fourth century. The earlier Christian biblical manuscripts are on papyrus, and extend only to about three of the larger books. (2) The Jews of Alexandria took their lead largely from Palestine, and would have been unlikely to establish their own distinct canon; moreover, their greatest writer, Philo, though frequently quoting from the Old Testament in his voluminous works, never refers to any of the Apocrypha whatsoever. (3) The earliest Christian biblical manuscripts contain the fewest books of the Apocrypha, and up until AD 313, only Wisdom, Tobit, and Sirach ever occur in them; other books of the Apocrypha were not added until later. (4) That the Apocrypha was mostly composed in Greek or outside Palestine is no longer widely believed, and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) itself states that it was composed in Hebrew (see its prologue; much of its Hebrew text has now been recovered). All the Apocrypha except Wisdom and 2 Maccabees may in fact have been translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, written in Palestine.
The way in which Christian writers used the Apocrypha confirms the above analysis. The New Testament seems to reflect knowledge of one or two of the apocryphal texts, but it never ascribes authority to them as it does to many of the canonical Old Testament books. While the New Testament quotes various parts of the Old Testament about three hundred times (see fig. 19.1), it never actually quotes anything from the Apocrypha (Jude 14–16 does not contain a quote from the Apocrypha but from another Jewish writing, 1 Enoch). In the second century, Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch, who frequently referred to the Old Testament, never referred to any of the Apocrypha. By the end of the second century Wisdom, Tobit, and Sirach were sometimes being treated as Scripture, but none of the other apocryphal books were. Their eventual acceptance was a slow development. Much the same is true with Christian lists of the Old Testament books: the oldest of them include the fewest of the Apocrypha; and the oldest of all, that of Melito (c. AD 170), includes none.
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF THE APOCRYPHA
The growing willingness of the pre-Reformation church to treat the Apocrypha as not just edifying reading but Scripture itself reflected the fact that Christians—especially those living outside Semitic-speaking countries—were losing contact with Jewish tradition. Within those countries, however, a learned Christian tradition akin to elements of Jewish tradition was maintained, especially by scholars such as Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, who cultivated the Hebrew language and Jewish studies. By the late fourth century, Jerome found it necessary to assert the distinction between the Apocrypha and the inspired Old Testament books with great emphasis, and a minority of writers continued to make the same distinction throughout the Middle Ages, until the Protestant Reformers arose and made the distinction an important part of their doctrine of Scripture. At the Council of Trent (1545–1563), however, the church of Rome attempted to obliterate the distinction and to put the Apocrypha (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh) on the same level as the inspired Old Testament books. This was a consequence of (1) Rome’s exalted doctrine of oral tradition, (2) its view that the church creates Scripture, and (3) its acceptance of certain controversial ideas (especially the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, and works-righteousness as contributing to justification) that were derived from passages in the Apocrypha. These teachings gave support to the Roman Catholic responses to Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation, which had begun in 1517.
Because of these controversial passages, some Protestants ceased to use the Apocrypha altogether. But other Protestants (notably Lutherans and Anglicans), while avoiding such passages and the ideas they contain, continued to read the Apocrypha as generally edifying religious literature. The Apocrypha, together with other postcanonical literature (especially the pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Philo and Josephus, the Targums, and the earliest rabbinical literature) can be helpful in additional ways. They provide the earliest interpretations of the Old Testament literature; they explain what happened in the time between the two Testaments; and they introduce customs, ideas, and expressions that provide a helpful background when reading the New Testament.
THE CONTENTS OF THE APOCRYPHA
Individually, the books of the Apocrypha are fifteen in number (but some count fourteen or twelve by combining some books; see list) and consist of various kinds of literature—narrative, proverbial, prophetic, and liturgical. They probably range in date from the third century BC (Tobit) to the first century AD (2 Esdras and perhaps The Prayer of Manasseh).
1. First Esdras (Gk. for “Ezra”), sometimes called 3 Esdras, covers the same ground as the book of Ezra, with a little of Chronicles and Nehemiah added. It also relates a debate on “the strongest thing in the world.”
2. Second Esdras, sometimes called 4 Esdras, is a pseudonymous apocalypse, preserved in Latin, not Greek, with two Christian chapters added at the beginning and two at the end. Chapter 14 gives the number of the Old Testament books. First and Second Esdras are not included in the Roman Catholic canon.
3. Tobit is a moral tale with a Persian background, dealing with almsgiving, marriage, and the burial of the dead.
4. Judith is an exciting story, in a confused historical setting, about a pious and patriotic heroine.
5. The Additions to Esther are a collection of passages added to the LXX version of Esther, bringing out its religious character.
6. Wisdom is a work inspired by Proverbs and written in the person of Solomon.
7. Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus, is a work somewhat similar to Wisdom, by a named author (Jeshua ben Sira, or Jesus the son of Sirach). It was written about 180 BC, and its catalog of famous men bears important witness to the contents of the Old Testament canon at that date. Its translator’s prologue, written half a century later, refers repeatedly to the three sections of the Hebrew Bible. (See chap. 8.)
8. Baruch is written in the person of Jeremiah’s companion, and somewhat in Jeremiah’s manner.
9. The Epistle of Jeremiah is connected to Baruch, and sometimes the two are counted together as one book (as in the King James Version, which therefore lists fourteen books rather than fifteen).
The Additions to Daniel consist of three segments (10, 11, and 12 in this list):
10. Susanna and
11. Bel and the Dragon are stories that tell how wise Daniel exposed unjust judges and deceitful pagan priests.
12. The Song of the Three Young Men contains a prayer and hymn put into the mouths of Daniel’s three companions when they are in the fiery furnace; the hymn is the one used in Christian worship as the Benedicite (in the Church of England’s services).
As stated before, some authorities count these three books (items 10, 11, and 12) as one book, namely, The Additions to Daniel, and they also count Baruch as one book that includes The Epistle of Jeremiah; in that way, they count only twelve books in the Apocrypha.
13. The Prayer of Manasseh puts into words Manasseh’s prayer for forgiveness in 2 Chronicles 33:12–13. It is not included in the Roman Catholic canon.
14–15. First and Second Maccabees relate the successful revolt of the Maccabees against the Hellenistic Syrian persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes in the mid-second century BC. The first book and parts of the second book are the primary historical sources for a knowledge of the Maccabees’ heroic faith, though the second book adds legendary material. The LXX also contains a 3 and 4 Maccabees, but these are of less importance.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE APOCRYPHA
The development of religious thought found in the Apocrypha, going beyond the teaching of the Old Testament, must be assessed by the teaching of the New Testament. For example, Wisdom 4:7–5:16 teaches that all face a personal judgment after this life. This is consistent with later New Testament teaching (Heb. 9:27).
Other teachings add doctrinal material foreign to New Testament teaching, such as the following:
The first two ideas find no support in the Old Testament or New Testament, and the second may be thought to give some support to the Roman Catholic idea of prayer to the saints who have died. The last three tenets are clearly at variance with what the New Testament teaches about regeneration, justification, and the present life as one’s only period of probation.
The Apocrypha, consequently, must be read with discretion. Though much in it simply reflects Judaism as practiced at a date somewhat later than the Old Testament, and some parts reflect developments in the direction of the New Testament, there are also certain misleading passages that have historical interest but, in terms of Christian theology and practice, are to be avoided.
3 Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41.
4 See Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 9b; Sotah 48b; Sanhedrin 11a; and Midrash Rabbah on Song of Songs 8.9.3.
5 Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 42.1–2, written c. AD 95.
6 For example, Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1–2.
7 For example, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.25.