After four hours of precious homework, I finally get to start on something entirely NEW! I didn't know these pages were the Apocrypha and I am excited to start reading. Hopefully by the end of the chapter I won't have to look in the book on how to spell Apocrypha...
Definitions
The apocryphal/Deutrocanonical books are those works that were included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Bible) on in Old Latin translations, but are not included in the Hebrew text that forms both the canon for Judaism and the Protestant Old Testament. That was a long definition but I wanted to include it because someone reading may not know and it is good to have a basis for what the next paragraphs will talk about.
"Apocrypha" means hidden things. This definition actually has nothing to do with the books themselves. Only conjecture can be said as to why they were called this. I find that very funny. How can you call something it's literal meaning but the word have nothing to do with the subject at hand? One of the theories to the name is that they were "restricted" books. This is interesting to me because if society actually enforced the restrictions they placed upon different literature we would not have many of the Classics we do today, the Bible included. The word "Deutrocanonical" doesn't even show up on my computer dictionary as I type. It is a Roman Catholic label for a group of books that is parallel to the Apocrypha. So, not much difference in meaning but very different groups that accept them.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Canons of the Old Testament
In my English class, we read the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. The author, Chaucer, writes a framed story of twenty-two travelers, all from different backgrounds headed to Canterbury. Many of the characters are of religious background or profession. Chaucer includes these characters to satirize them for their misconduct. In reading all the horrible things the "religious" folks were doing, it creates doubt for their rule. The story also includes a poor plowman who is the ideal Christian, not needing greed or pride because he is serving God through his actions. All this to say that many of the churches were responsible for the order and context of our Bibles. If Chaucer saw a need to correct their behavior, what does that say about their decisions on the Holy text? I am such a supporter of the communities coming together to decide what should be included. Just as the poor plowman was a symbol of Christ, the body of a community should worship together under one decision. I am not saying that all churches were corrupt, nor that their decisions on the Bible were wrong, but after my lesson in English it makes me think twice about the early churches and their view points of power.
The Status of the Apocryphal/Deurerocanonical Books in Christianity
In Eastern Churches, a very little distinction was made between the Hebrew canon and additional works. During the late fifth century, the church came together to decide which of these works to declare canonized. They ended up assimilating the "additional works" as canonized. I think this shows that the church and it's people understood that it was okay to regard certain texts as canons because they were always thought to be anyway. It is impressive that the entire Eastern church, so I'm led to believe, agreed upon this assimilation. I think it is also important what the Western Church did. The idea of separating the original texts from the additional ones is a good idea, allowing the people to decide for themselves if they want to take the additional texts as scripture or to simply use them as study material. Having the texts available is better than banning them and saying they have no right to even be studied. Bodenstein is wise with his words regarding the different books (pg1363).
Dutch Bible: "The books which are not in the cannon, that is to say, which one does not find among the Jews in the Hebrew"; Words separating the Apocrypha.
Swiss reformer, Oecolampadius: we do not allow them divine authority with the others.
Historical Background
Many political changes ending with Seleucid in control over Syria, Egypt, and Judah occurred, but the language, Greek, and Hellenistic culture continued. The Jews were at one time pressured by outside forces and outcasted; however, they banned together and revolted, taking back their land until later dates. I find this very comforting. The people of God were able to stand up for their rights and beliefs, and he granted them victory. It gives me strength and hope for the future of America and its citizens who believe in Christ.
Types of Literature
There are different types of generes throughout the Bible and the Apocrypha. Many can be comparred to each other to see a similarity in the books that have been "approved" and those that have been rejected. I understand the difference in fiction and non-fiction, historical and folktale, but I also believe that God is capable of creating anything. No one had seen a real dinosaur from millions of years ago, and bones are continually being found all over the world. That being said, what can stop God from having created a dragon, its bones being scattered, and waiting to be discovered? I believe that everything God created existed at one time, and that everything He said is truth. Whether Jeseus invented a story to help his followers understand a message, that story existed.
Didactic literature: intended to teach.
There is not one full letter in the Hebrew OT, versus the NT where all but one book is a letter. I think this contrast was intended by God to show the people's reaction to his changing, fulfilling doctrine. He had much control over the OT because it was the Law for a majority of his followers, then when Jesus came to Earth the lessons shifted into a futuristic view-point. The Apocrypha does NOT include prophetic texts. This lacking is said to spring from the views of historians. I do not know how I feel about these books not involving the future of the Jews. God set many prophecies so that when Jesus came he could say I have fulfilled all I have promised, an appeal to the Ethos.
New Testament
There are only allusions from the Apocrypha in the New Testament and not direct quotes as appear from the books in the Hebrew OT. This is evidence against calling the Apocrypha "scripture." However, I still believe that you cannot judge the texts until you have read them. Whether they were added before or after certain periods of time does not matter; God is continually at work.
Conclusion
Overall, I learned that there were two separate Bibles in the beginning. The Babylonian Bible because of it's location did NOT include, what would be later known as, the Apocrypha. This first Bible , the main text for the Jews, contined with changes from scribes until the Masoretic Text defined what is scripture. The second known Bible is the Septuagint, the Christian Greek translation, in Egypt and Palestine. Because of it's location, the Apocrypha was originally included in the authoritative texts.
There was much controversy over which Bible was the "original," when indeed both texts are valid.
I believe, though I have yet to study closely and read it, the Apocrypha should have been included in our Bibles today. If it has been in our history for hundreds of years, then why should it not be taught today? Why does the Christian church not mention that such books exist when it is apart of their history?
No comments:
Post a Comment