# Augustine and the Apocrypha



## Coram Deo (Feb 28, 2008)

Why did Augustine champion the apocrypha during his life and during the third Counsel of Carthage?


Also Why did the apocrypha remain in every bible including the Geneva, Lutheran, and KJV up to the mid 1800s? and continues in the Lutheran bible today? 


Also of interest is why the Belgic Confession and the 39 Article Confession allows the apocrypha to be read in the churches?

_Beglic Confession_

Article VI - The Difference between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, viz: the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, the Appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the other, that is, the sacred books.

_39 Article Confession_

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 28, 2008)

curious also.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2008)

Alexander McClure, _The Translators Revived_, pp. 185-186:



> The sixth and last company of King James's Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture.*
> 
> *The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon or list of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of tile Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration, t. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures bv the lewish Church, and therefore were never semctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of tile Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in tile two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the mmmers, language, opinions and history of the East.)
> 
> Still this party of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.



Edward F. Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, pp. 95-98:



> (d) The Latin Old Testament (Vulgate)—The Apocrypha
> 
> The earliest Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint. Scholars think that this translating was probably done at Carthage during the 2nd century. Many other such translations were made during the years that followed. In the fourth century Augustine reported that there was "an infinite variety of Latin translations,"[7] and Jerome that there were as many texts of this version as there were manuscripts.[8] Jerome at first attempted to revise the Latin Old Testament, but in AD 390 he undertook the labor of producing a new translation directly from the Hebrew. This version, which Jerome completed in AD 405, later became known as the Latin Vulgate and is the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, having been so proclaimed at the Council of Trent (AD 1546).
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 28, 2008)

*FYI:*

_Background and History of the Apocrypha_ by David Phillips
_What's in the Apocrypha?_ by David Phillips
_Apocrypha: It's Use_ by David Phillips


----------



## Coram Deo (Feb 28, 2008)

I can not speak for all of those points since I am not learned enough in the Apocrypha but a few I have to disagree with...

Point 1.. Agreed, that they are not included in the Hebrew Text, but the Masoretic Text is only dated after the birth of Christ when the Septuagint which contain the the apocrypha is dated before the birth of Christ... The Septuagint seems to be older... Plus the Dead Sea Scrolls is older then the Septuagint and is in Hebrew and they contain the Apocrypha...


Point 2.. Some do lay claim to be inspired with such as "Thus saith the Lord" "The Lord saith", etc...

Point 3.. The Jews after Christ may have never acknowledged them but there seems to be a prophecy in 2nd Esdras that seem to prophecy the name of Christ and that he would die for his people in 400 years... Maybe the Jews after the Jamia Counsel did not want to acknowledge Christ? But either way, it is an argument from silent on this point....

Point 4.. Many if not most of the early church fathers acknowledge and quoted from the Apocrypha before Jerome ever questioned them which he only askerick them as uncertain.... Even after Jerome Augustine seem to champion them which is why I asked the question in the first place....

Point 5, 6, 7, I am uncertain about.... But are they instructive or historical narrative? are they catholic interpretation or even other false interpretation? example would be the prayers for the dead which in 2nd Maccabees seem to be a historical narrative of what they did and not a command from God to pray for the dead.......



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Alexander McClure, _The Translators Revived_, pp. 185-186:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DTK (Feb 28, 2008)

thunaer said:


> Why did Augustine champion the apocrypha during his life and during the third Counsel of Carthage?


I will respond to this single question, because I do not have the time to engage all the others.

The reason why some of the ECFs (like Augustine) accepted the OT apocrypha is because these books were for some reason included in the Septuagint. It is assumed that the seventy (72) translators of the Septuagint (LXX) included these apocryphal books in their translation, though this cannot be proved because there are no original LXX mss. It is possible that these OT apocryphal came to be included in the LXX long after the translation of the seventy. 

At any rate, Augustine, like many others in his day, believed in a popular legend that the seventy (or 72) translators of the Septuagint were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and because they (Augustine and others) thought that they (the translators of the LXX) included these apocryphal books in their translation (which is questionable), then they must be part of the canon. When Jerome began his translation work of the Bible, using the Hebrew original rather than the LXX from which to translate it, it was not looked upon favorably by Augustine and others. The quotes below may give you some idea of the thoughts current in their day...



> *Augustine (354-430) to Jerome:* For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them. _NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine_, Letter 71, §4.
> 
> *Augustine (354-430) to Jerome:* I desire, moreover, your translation of the Septuagint, in order that we may be delivered, so far as is possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin translation; and in order that those who think that I look with jealousy on your useful labors, may at: length, if it be possible, perceive that my only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah,’ if in the Hebrew it is neither “gourd” nor “ivy,” but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it “gourd” in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd. _NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine_, Letter 82, §35.
> 
> ...



Interestingly enough, Augustine did not believe the modern day Roman Catholic contention that the Church (of Rome) can infallibly identify the canon of Holy Scripture. The following quote from Augustine shows that churches in his day did disagree over the books to be included in the canon, and that when they did their authority was to be regarded as equal. If their authority in their differences was to be regarded as equal, then that precludes any notion of infallibility...


> *Augustine (354-430) on the Canon of Scripture:* But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. *Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles.* Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. *If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.* _NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine_, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., _De Doctrina Christiana_, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.



*A side note for the controversy between Romanists and Protestants on the canon of Holy Scripture:* The councils of Hippo and Carthage received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras as canonical. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage and Pope Innocent I received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo and Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and designated it as 3 Esdras.

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 1, 2008)

J. Van Bruggen, _The Church Says Amen: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession_, pp. 41-42:



> *2. Church usage*
> 
> In the translation of the Septuagint (approximately two hundred hundred years before Christ) ten books were added to the Old Testament. The Jews had never included these in the canon and Christ and His apostles never quoted from them. Athanasius and Jerome did not recognize them as divine. However, because Hebrew was not known and the Septuagint was used for the Old Testament, its apocryphal additions found their way into the Churches. The Roman Catholic Church has included them in the Vulgate (approved translation), among the books of the Old Testament, and regards them as semi-canonical, which means canonical but to a second degree. The reformers did not recognize them as divine, but did not completely break from using them. At the Synod of Dort the question arose whether or not the apocryphal books should be included in the translation of the Bible. The Dutch were strongly opposed to it, but because no other Church outside their country had previously excluded them, and for fear of embarrassing the foreign delegates, it was decided to include them. However, they were to be inserted after the books of the New Testament so that it would be clear to all that they did not belong to the Bible but were merely an appendix. Besides, they were prefaced, warning the reader along the lines of this article. The apocryphal books were also printed in smaller print and were not accompanied with annotations.



From the Introduction to the 2002 facsimile reprint of the 1657 (Haak translation of the) Dutch Annotations (which does not include the Apocrypha):



> The annotators were to be knowledgeable about many things. It becomes clear from the marginal notes that they were well versed in the writings of the church fathers and the classics, the heathen as well as the Christian historians, and even in the work of the Jewish rabbis. Philosophers, heretics, Roman Catholic popes, councils, the Reformers - they can all be found. Sporadically something from the Apocryphal books can be read in the marginal notes, as well as facts about weights and measures, illnesses, the art of singing, etc.



Also, see Daniel R. Hyde, _With Heart and Mouth: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession_, pp. 89-100.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 1, 2008)

In 2005 Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today," says this of the legend of the Septuagint.

"The Letter's [of Aristreas] reputation was finally destroyed, thoroughly
and effectively, by Humphrey Hody.....[he] is clear from the title page onward:
the very first word of his title is "Contra," and the title goes on to say "in
which it is demonstrated that [the Letter] was forged by some Jew in order
to give authority to the Greek version." Wasserstein, Legend of the Sept.
p. 254, Dec 13, 2005

The International Standard Bible Encylopedia of 1994 echos the same
conclusion. Hody spent 20 years on this work and published it in 1704, it is a shame
that mythology still surrounds this discussion.


----------



## k.seymore (Mar 1, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> And all the more is this so if it be true, as Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom, James with Ecclesiasticus, John with Tobit, and the author of Hebrews (who may have been Paul) with 2 Maccabees.[11] For if these Apostles knew these apocryphal books this well and still refrained from quoting or mentioning them as Scripture, then it is doubly certain that they did not accord these books a place in the Old Testament canon. According to C. C. Torrey (AD 1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha.[12]



Just in case anyone was interested in some of the passages from the Apocrypha which are spoken about in the quote above, I have copied and pasted some below that I found awhile back while reading through it. And I'd suggest that everyone reads through the Apocrypha if you have some extra time, many of the books are very interesting and shed light on various strands of Jewish thinking.



> Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom...



Here's some of the passages that he might be referring to. In Wisdom 13 it says:

_"For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works... And if people were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is the one who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator... Yet again, not even they are to be excused; for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things? But miserable, with their hopes set on dead things, are those who give the name ‘gods’ to the works of human hands, gold and silver fashioned with skill, and likenesses of animals, or a useless stone, the work of an ancient hand..."_

It is definitely possible that Paul may be thinking of that passage when he writes this:

_"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Rom 1:18-23)_

Wisdom also speaks quite a bit about God's sovereignty, saying things like:

_"For who will say, ‘What have you done?’
or will resist your judgment?" (Wis 12:12)_

_"A potter kneads the soft earth
and laboriously moulds each vessel for our service,
fashioning out of the same clay
both the vessels that serve clean uses
and those for contrary uses, making all alike;
but which shall be the use of each of them
the worker in clay decides." (Wis 15:7)_

Which appear to have been passages Paul was familiar with, and Paul may be thinking of these when he says:

_"You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:19-21)_



> According to C. C. Torrey (AD 1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha.



Maybe he is referring to these two passages, I don't know:

In Wisdom 7:25-26 it speaks of wisdom personified:

_"She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness."_

And in Hebrews 1:3 Christ is spoken of similarly:

_"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."_

The books in the apocrypha are also interesting in explaining other things, such as why we see Jesus in the temple at the feast of Dedication (John 10:22-23). Reading the story of the Maccabees sheds "light" on why Jews worshipped in the temple during this time (1 Mac.4:56-59).


----------

