The Apocrypha, Early Church Fathers and Councils, and Martin Luther
Lesson 3
By Pr. Rich Futrell
Jan 16, 2011
Recap
Last week, we learned that the Apostolic Fathers quoted and referenced the Apocrypha, without distinction, in the same way they did the others part of the Old Testament.
Hagiographa/Kethuvim
To understand the distinction in Old Testament books that would develop in the New Testament Church, one must first understand the Jewish concept of Hagiographa (Kethuvim in Hebrew). The Jewish Old Testament is separated into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings. The Holy Writings are the Hagiographa.
The Hagiographa was the last group of books included in the Old Testament. Before the Jewish canon was closed in the 2nd century, the Hagiographa included the Apocrypha. Even as late as the time of Jerome (347-420 AD), in his Prefaces to Judith and Tobit, Jerome mentioned that the Jews of his day included these books among the “Hagiographa” but did not use them to make doctrine.
– If Jerome was correct, why would the Jews choose not to use the Hagiographa to make doctrine?
Athanasius (295-373), Bishop of Alexandria: The Anagignoskomena
As was the custom in ancient Alexandria, the bishop would write a letter to the congregations under his charge. In the 39th Festal Letter, in 367 AD, Athanasius dealt with some spurious books that were circulating in the churches. To help separate Scripture from the spurious books, Athanasius wrote:
The Old Testament is made up of 22 books…. In this order [Athanasius lists the books in the Protestant Old Testament, adding Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and excluding the book of Esther] so far are the books of the Old Testament….
But for greater accuracy, I consider it necessary to say this. Other books exist that are not part of the Canon, but which the Fathers have decreed should be read to those who have recently come into the fold, seek to be catechized, and who study to learn the Christian doctrine. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], and Pastor [Shepherd of Hermas].
Here we see the first distinction of the Anagignoskomena books, that is, books worthy of being read, studied, and preached on. However, like the Jewish classification of “hagiographa” (holy books) for some of the Old Testament books, doctrine was not to be created from such books.
– Discuss Athanasius’ words that “other books exist that are not part of the Canon, but which the Fathers have decreed should be read …”
Cyril (315-386), Bishop of Jerusalem: The Deuterocanon
Like Athanasius, Cyril had to deal with spurious books being circulated among the churches. And so he wrote a letter to his congregations. From his Catechetical Lectures:
Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament and of the New. Read none of the apocryphal writings [here referring to spurious writings, not the Apocrypha] … Read the Divine Scriptures, the 22 books of the Old Testament that have been translated by the 72 interpreters [the Septuagint]. [Cyril then lists the 22 books, which included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and then goes on to say:] But then let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank [deutero].
From Cyril, we get the first distinction of the deuterocanon, canonical books of secondary rank. It is this classification that changes later in the Roman Catholic Church, especially during the Council of Trent.
– Discussion: if the books of secondary rank books are still part of the Old Testament, why were they classified as secondary?
Jerome (347-420), Translator: The Apocrypha
Jerome was charged to make a new translation of the Bible into Latin for the Roman Catholic Church. The Old Latin translation was based on the Septuagint but had become corrupted and had about as many variants as texts.
Instead of translating from the Greek Septuagint, Jerome chose to work from the Hebrew. He called this “Hebrew Verity.” Jerome concluded that working from the original Hebrew was a better way to produce the official Latin translation than making a translation of a translation.
– Why was Jerome’s concept of Hebrew Verity good?
– Why was Jerome’s concept of Hebrew Verity bad?
With Jerome working from the Hebrew (then a pre-Masoretic text), the Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew for him to translate. Couple not having Hebrew texts to translate from with the Jewish rejection of the Apocrypha (although, even in Jerome’s day, the rejection was, ironically, not fully complete), we begin to see a new view of these secondary, but worthy to read, books emerge.
Jerome was the first Church father who wanted to categorize the Apocrypha as NOT part of the Old Testament (although earlier Sextus Julius Africanus doubted the Apocrypha). Jerome coined the term “apocrypha” from the Greek word for “hidden,” to distinguish these from Scripture and other religious writings. This new understanding was an innovation and drew much criticism, especially in Jerome’s day by Rufinius.
– Discussion: How do the categories deuterocanon, angignoskomena, and apocrypha differ? How are they similar?
Church Councils, Canonization, and the Apocrypha
Today, what books make up the New Testament books in the Bible go back to the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 AD. However, that same council also listed the Old Testament books of the Bible. In Canon 24, the council wrote:
Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings], Paralipomena [Chronicles] two books, Job, the David’s Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach], the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Ezra two books, Maccabees two books.
This list is the Protestant Old Testament and the seven books of the Apocrypha. (Note: the extra Apocrypha books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible go back to the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 AD.)
F.F. Bruce in his authoritative book, The Canon of Scripture, wrote:
In 393 a church council held in Augustine’s see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of the council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to be the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon.… The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books.
Although the Council called the Apocrypha “canon,” the Western Church treated the Apocrypha as secondary canon (deuterocanon), recognizing the historical context of the 3rd Council of Carthage, which was affirming Athansius’ and Cyril’s view of the Old Testament.
– Protestantism hails the Council of Carthage (397 AD) as historical validity for the books that comprise the New Testament. Why isn’t the same council used for Old Testament support?
Luther (1480-1546)
During his lifetime, Luther translated the Bible into German. His translation did include the Apocrypha; so Luther did not reject the Apocrypha. What Luther did that was novel was his placement of the Apocrypha: he placed them between the two testaments. This tradition of placing the Apocrypha between the two testaments helped set in place two views of thought:
- Positive: The Apocrypha was a secondary category of books within the Bible. This was nothing new, and may, in truth, have helped better understand the Apocrypha as deuterocanon and/or anagignoskomena.
- Negative: By putting all the Apocrypha together instead of interspersing them as before, Luther helped set up a churchly culture that could later more-easily remove the Apocrypha altogether from the Bible. And this largely took place in the Bibles Protestant used in the 1800s (1900s for German Lutherans who were transitioning to English).
Luther’s most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Yet, Luther’s view of Scripture is more complex than today’s simple yes-or-no approach. Luther’s view was more catholic than the average Christian has today. Ralph Bohlmann in Criteria of Biblical Canonicity, wrote:
In both Testaments Luther thus regarded a number of books to be of lesser authority than the chief books. But did inferiority mean non-canonicity? The answer is not simple, for in spite of Luther’s negative attitude toward such books, they were included in every edition of Luther’s Bible published during his lifetime (and for many years thereafter). If the disputed books were not in some sense “biblical,” it is difficult to understand why Luther neither eliminated them from his Bible nor added other useful apocryphal writings to each Testament. Moreover, his language at least occasionally suggests that these books remain “Scripture,” as, for example, when he contrasts them with “all other Scripture.” [pg. 120]
So we find that Luther included the apocryphal books in his Die Bibel. He did not consider them equal in authority to canonical Scripture, and held they should not be used to define Christian doctrine. In other words, Luther saw them as secondary, yet still worthy of being read, as anagignoskomena.
Although Luther’s denigration of the Apocrypha was atypical, his views were still within the norm of the Church catholic in that he treated the Apocrypha as biblical but not canonical, not for making or creating doctrine.
We will find later movements dealing with the Apocrypha, both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Roman Catholicism will begin to treat the secondary books as equal to the primary books of the Old Testament. Protestantism will accept only the shorter, post-Akiba Hebrew canon. We will also find that Luther’s views of the Apocrypha are weaker than those of the Lutheran Confessions. But that’s next week’s lesson.
Click here to read the next lesson.
