(14 votes, average: 4.57 out of 5)
Loading...Here is a recent question I have received about the “Old Testament Apocrypha.”
QUESTION
Bart, I hope you won’t mind me asking a totally unrelated question: At the beginning of the Christian Era – how many books of the Hebrew Old Testament did the Greek Septuagint translation contain?
RESPONSE:
This is indeed an important topic, one usually overlooked completely by Protestant readers of the Bible. Here is what I say about the apocrypha in my textbook on the Bible:
*************************************************************
In addition to the canonical books we have examined so far, there was other literature written by Jewish authors that cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible but that is of great importance for anyone interested in it. Of these other Jewish books, none is of greater historical significance than a collection of writings that can be found in some Christian versions of the Old Testament. These are the deuterocanonical writings, as they are called in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions; Protestants typically designate them as the Apocrypha. The term “apocrypha” may not be altogether appropriate, as it is a word that means …
To see the rest of this post you will need to belong to the Blog. Joining is very easy and remarkably inexpensive — it costs less than fifty cents a week! And every one of those cents goes to charity, to help those in need. So why not join??
” I may describe these in future posts if anyone is interested.”
Yes please.
“All of these books were written by Jews and for Jews. Most of them were written after the final books of the Hebrew Bible and before the writings of the New Testament, so that roughly speaking they can be thought of as some of the “intertestamental” Jewish literature (i.e., written “between the testaments”).”
And so they are, presumably, very relevant to understanding the context of the time and background of Jesus and the writings about him?
Yup!
“Most Jews, of course, could not read at all, since like most of the people living in the Roman Empire the vast majority of Jews—probably some 90 percent—were not literate.”
What makes you think that most Jews were illiterate like the “probably 90%” ?
How could this be true when all young boys have to read from Torah scroll at age 13 during their Bar Mitzvah ?
That wasn’t happening in the first century. Modern scholarship has worked to establish literacy rates, both in the Roman world at large and in Palestine in particular. If you’re interested in seeing what the evidence is, a good place to start is William Harris, Ancient Literacy. (One of his arguments is that massive literacy does not enter civilization until the Industrial Revolution, when capitalist economies realized the enormous economic benefit, given changes in technoology, of spending the huge resources of time and money on having a literate public); for Jewish literacy the first place to turn is the book by Catherine Hezser.
Wasnt the septugint originally just the five books of Moses?
I’ve heard rabbis say that the Septuagint has been lost to history. What we know as the Septuagint in modern times is a production of the Christian church.
Therefore not trustworthy.
There wasn’t a *single* translation of the Bible into Greek, but a number of them. Probably the Torah was the first to be translated, though, yes.
Am I correct in thinking that often (always?) when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament the authors are using the Septuagint, as opposed to directly translating from the Hebrew? I know some passages line up better with the Septuagint than the original Hebrew version.
Yes, that is almost always the case.
Dr. Ehrman, according to DSS Digital Library the books of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah are represented among the works at Qumran. Any thoughts regarding the significance of the community possessing these three books, but not the others that were included in the Septuagint? In particular, why no additions to Daniel, since the community was apparently apocalyptic?
Yes, the community had other books besides the Hebrew Bible; another one found there is 1 Enoch (not in the “Apocrypha”) e.g.
Was there a sense of a single “septuagint” in the first century? Was it just that every book had only a singe greek translation at the time, or was there a sense that there was one “authoritative” translation?
Wasnt the story of the 72 translators for Ptolemy only supposed to apply to the pentateuch?
Also is much known about when/where the translations of the books were done?
There were probably several Greek translations floating around, not a single septuagint…. We don’t have any historical information about who really did them or where.
Thank you Bart, very enlightening.
From my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, these books are where some of the Traditions (capital T meaning passed on by the apostles) come from? Protestants often accuse Catholics of adding or inventing doctrines that aren’t in the Bible whereas, for Catholics, they are! I believe purgatory is one case where Catholics derive the belief from these books as are several others. It’s fun to read Protestants and Catholics arguing back and forth about who added to the Bible and who cut a chunk of it out!
Yes, that was one reason Martin Luther did not like these books.
Your text states “As I have mentioned, most Jews by the time, say, of the Maccabean Revolt—or, later, of the days of Jesus—did not live in Palestine…”. I thought the Jews were mainly in Palestine (except during exiles) until 66-70 AD when Rome brought them to ruin. Can you describe the details behind your text, specifically Jewish populations around the world, during the time of Jesus? I’m assuming Jerusalem was still thought of as their spiritual center but where would their population center have been? Is it just that they were dispersed (thus the Diaspora) and that the total of the dispersed Jews outnumbered the Palestinian Jews, but that Palestine still had the largest concentration?
No, there were far more Jews living outside of Palestine than within it, in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Babylon. When they scattered at various times (e.g. in the 6th century BCE) they started new communities and these naturally grew and grew and grew.
They would be worthy of some examination in future posts, along with the others you very briefly mention in your textbook.
If I’m not mistaken, and I haven’t read the books of the Maccabees word for word, but isn’t the story of the miracle of the menorah oil lasting 8 nights absent from these books?
Off hand I don’t remember!
That’s correct. The story comes from the Talmud.
mkahn1977, the story about the cruse of oil lasting eight days comes from the Talmud:
Tractate Shabbath, Folio 21b
What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew [commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.
The story is in one of the books–the first one. I think.
I think you should add that the Anglican Communion (including the Episcopal Church) accepts them as deuterocanonical (though they label them as apocrypha).
If the Septuagint was the standard Bible for Jews in the Diaspora, did it fall out of favor or is it still considered the Bible by some Jews?
It fell out of favor, in large part because it was adopted by Christians.
I recall hearing many years ago that the rabbis excluded Judith because she used a sword to cut off Holofernes’s head, a sword is a weapon reserved for men. However, I can’t find any Talmudic references. I did see a graduate paper suggesting that Judith may simply have been written too late for inclusion.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
Never heard that one! But then again, it’s amazing the number of things I’ve never heard….
When I was a Christian believer, I was frequently told that what matters is which books did Palestinian Jews use in the times of Jesus. But from what I’ve read, it looks like there were several groups that used different books, for example the Sadducees focused solely on the Torah. Could you say a few words on the topic?
It’s widely thought that the Sadducees stuck to the Torah; Pharisees and Essenes and others had a range of books, including the historical narratives, the prophets, the Psalms, and so on that they considered authoritative. Judaism at the time was not a single thing but lots of things.
Like today!
Dr. Ehrman, this reminds me of a certain question I have always had in the back of my mind. Back when you were an Evangelical, what effect did the existence of these extra-canonical books have on your sola scriptura beliefs? I mean, if the Bible was supposed to be the one and only authority on everything, how much (if any) authority did these outside works have? For instance, how is it significant that the Book of Esther is the canonical word God, but the Book of Judith isn’t?
I simply thought those crazy Catholics and Orthodox didn’t know what they were talking about. 🙂
Wow, that is an incredible coincidence. Literally, just yesterday, as I was doing some reading on the history of Palestine (specifically, the Gaza Strip), something therein made me wonder about the 400 or so years of “intertestamental” history. Just 24 hours ago, I thought, that would be an interesting topic for Dr. Ehrman!
I have to admit, as someone who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, it is easy to see how human brains interpret such seemingly impossible coincidences as somehow divine.
So, yes, I would love to hear more about these books, and two questions:
1) why didn’t the Jews choose to include these in their canon (that seems like a pretty good argument on behalf of the Protestants’ perspective)?
2) when you were an evangelical, how did you reconcile this odd gap in the history (the Jews were meticulous at trying to record something – even if it was entirely fabricated- from the time of Moses on to the end of the OT)? Why did they stop when they did?
1) Probably because they were later than the books of the canon and not written in Hebrew; 2) It was all directed by God.
I remember reading that the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches accept the Book of Enoch as scripture and identify the Ge’ez language as Enochian, the earliest language. Is that true or am I misremembering?
I’m afraid I don’t have a definitive answer. My understanding was that the Enochic literature played a very large role in the developing theology of the Ethiopian church; and yes, 1 Enoch is written in Ge’ez. But I don’t think it was accepted as canonical scripture. Maybe someone can correct me!
Beta (House of) Israel, Jews from Ethiopia, consider Enoch to be part of their secondary canon but not among their holiest books, their Hexateuch (Torah plus Joshua, Judges & Ruth). The Orthodox Tewahedo canon of Christians in Ethiopia and Eitrea also includes Enoch. Yes, Ge’ez, a southern semitic language, is believed by some to have been the original language spoken prior to the Tower of Babel.
Do we know what language 1 Enoch was originally written in?
It survives in Ethiopic; it was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic (it’s debated)
why of the deuterocanonical reason?
There is some connection with Deuteronomy
“Deutero” means “second” or something like “having a secondary standing” Deuteronomy means “Second Law” becuase in it Moses gives the law a second time, this time to the children of the people who received it the first time; Deutero-canonical refers to books with a secondary status in the canon.
Fascinating. And yes, please.
Bart…if one wanted to read the NT in chronological order, rather than the way it’s found in most Bibles would it be; Paul’s Letters, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation? The usual way implies as in any book, start to finish, first to last. Assume that’s not the way it really happened? Thanks!
Yes, probably, for those books — except Acts is usually placed right on the heels of Luke and before John (in terms of time of writing). The problem is figuring out dates for all the others! An impossible task, actually.
I recall hreading or (more likley) hearing somewhere (perhaps in a protestant setting) that Jesus (or Jesus, Paul, the Evangelists, or the collection of all NT writers) reference or quote every book of the (protestant) canon OT, but none of the Apocrypha, and that that is the (a) logic for exclusion them.
But I also seem to recall there is at least one other book not cited in the NT (Esther?).
Any following for this argument out there, Bart?
Yeah, that’s not the case. As to Esther, I think maybe you’re thinking of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which preserve portions of every part of the Hebrew Bible *except* Esther.
In the Reformation, did the Protestants remove the Apocrypha from scripture or did the Catholics add the Apocrypha to the canon to tweak the Reformers?
Depends whether you ask Protestants or Catholics.
The new Swedish translation of the Bible (Bible 2000) includes some of the apocryphal books, even though we are Protestant.
Would you say that Hebrews refers to 2. Maccabees? Also, that NT quotes from Septuagint?
1. I doubt it, but haven’t really looked into it. 2. Yup, absolutely.