www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Apocryphal errors

As a �seeker� I�ve come across the following sites which may be helpful; I had wondered if there were any cross-references, quotations or allusions to apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical texts in the NT.

At the Scripture Catholic site:
Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
(in addition to references in the NT, also provides reference/quotation from these books in Epistle of Barnabus, Clement, etc)
They also have a section on LXX quotes in the NT and other helpful articles!
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/index.html

Here�s another site:
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

also...
Defending the Deuterocanonicals by James Akin
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Most Catholic/Orthodox sites with an apologetics section on Scripture cover
most of the questions, history, opinions of the Church fathers, etc. and provide links to apocryphal literature (much of which is available � FREE � online). I am a seeker - and by no means an authority on the subject ... just investigating. Of course there are some people at this Forum who have provided us all with some excellent information, too � my thanks to God for those who serve us all in using their gift(s) for the glory of God and the edification of His children. What a wealth of information/experience.

Pardon my reply if not in sync with your query - I was not sure if this was a question about information about Christian books, writings � like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement which did not make it into the NT canon, or books quoted in NT like the book of Enoch,Assumption of Moses or just the accepted Deuterocanonical books, etc. Does a quotation of or allusion to a portion qualify as a complete endorsement of the contents? I confess my ignorance in the matter. The apostle Paul quoted non-Scripural literature and gleaned from the truth found therein (without endorsing the extraneous, etc). The Church has already covered this ground several times - what I think "I've discovered" was already unearthed so to speak by others as led by the Holy Spirit. So - reluctantly, I having to become a student of history. I'm following C.S. Lewis' advise (in the preface to The Incarnation of the Word by St. Athanasius) and reading the "old books" first. I'm thankful we don't have to "reinvent the wheel" in every generation!

Hope this helps a little...

A blessed and joyful Pascha to you all!

Woody

As the process of the formation of the Canon (official list of what books are in and what books are not) did not take place in any sort of uniform manner, it is hard to say whether or not a quotation or allusion constitutes an endorsement. What it does mean, however, is that the cited source was known and was held with great respect. Some of the sources to which you refer, such as the Book of Enoch, are contained in canon the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and are considered by them to be scripture.

Another interesting thing to note is that the books that are most cited in the New Testament (e.g., Isiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy) are also the writings found in the greatest numbers at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls). So even though the Jewish canon was not settled in the first century, it does indicate that there was some general agreement on what were the most important writings. While there are some works which are found at Qumran and are referenced in the New Testament, but not found in the Masoretic text, it does not mean they were found to not be scriptural, but rather that when a formal canon was drawn up they simply were not included. No one was precluded from reading the texts, as many of them continued to be used by both Jews and Christians alike. Other texts, however, such as the gnostic gospels, were explicitly rejected; they were not simply not included, they were intentionally excluded as not bearing the true witness of Christ.

The reason why there are books that are found in the Orthodox and Catholic canons which are not included in Protestant Bibles stems from the issue of two texts of the books that would eventually come to make up the Bible that predate Christianity. The following is from a talk I have given:

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made sometime in the third century BCE (traditionally 282 BCE) by 72 eminent Jewish scholars, some of whom were brought from the Temple of Jerusalem to Alexandria. It should be noted, however, that the Hebrew canon (list of the scrolls to be included and not included) was not settled at this time. In fact, the canon seems to have been rather flexible until after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE). The result of this translation is that two traditions developed: the Septuagint Greek translation based on some unknown Hebrew texts and the later Masoretic Text that was preserved in Rabbinic Judaism. Because of the Hellenistic world in which Christianity developed, Christians (and most Jews for that matter) used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX). After the destruction of the Temple, when Judaism was transformed from a Temple-centered religion to a Torah-centered religion, the Masoretic Text, in Hebrew came to be most common. When this canon was created, all works not originally composed in Hebrew were excluded, even such works as Maccabees that relate the events that are commemorated at Hannukah.

The New Testament was of course written in Greek and additional books, some of which had been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, were translated into Greek and appended to the Septuagint. As Hellenistic culture began to wane, several translations of the Septuagint and the (Greek) New Testament began to appear, including important Syriac and Ethiopic (Ge'ez) translations, which are used in their respective churches as well as a source for comparison by Biblical scholars. Of central importance for the Western Church was St. Jerome�s translation (405 CE) of all the scriptures into Latin. Although there had been older translations into Latin (Vetus Latina), Jerome did his translations into the form of Latin that was actually being used by the people, rather than classical Latin, hence the name given to his text: Vulgate. He began his translation using the Greek LXX, but later switched to Hebrew sources, although he produced two versions of the Psalms (one from the Greek, one from the Hebrew). The Vulgate did not come into dominant use until the ninth century, so as a result much of the hymnody (traditional liturgical songs) of the western Church is actually based on the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate.

It may seem that this has nothing to do with our modern translations, but it becomes important when we see what happened with the texts in the Reformation. When Luther (1522) and Wycliffe (1525) translated their Bibles, they did so from the Vulgate, but Luther excluded from his Canon any Old Testament books that were not found in the Masoretic Text (used by Jews), which recall was anything that had not been originally composed in Hebrew (such as the Book of Maccabees, composed in Greek). Luther's reason for doing so was not theological, but was founded on a misunderstanding of the historical relations of the texts, as he felt that these books had been added by the Christian Church after its divergence from Judaism, thinking that the Jews alone had preserved the correct text. But as we have seen, there were actually two texts. This is why the Catholic Bible is longer than the Protestant Bible, although the more scholarly versions of the latter now generally include the omitted books under the label Apocryphal or Deutero-Canonical books.

The first Catholic Bible translated into English was the Douai-Rheims Bible, translated by the English-speaking College of Douai in Rheims, France and published in its entirety in 1610 (New Testament in 1568). This translation, based on the Vulgate, was intended to correct errors in the Wycliffe Bible that were seen as being Protestant slams against the Catholic Church and countered polemic with more polemic. There are unfortunately Catholics who are trying to resurrect the Douai-Rheims Bible and it is commonly seen for sale in Catholic bookstores. In 1604, King James gave a decree for the best scholars of the day (47 of them worked on the project) to translate the Bible from original sources into English that was completed in 1611. This Bible was the standard for Protestant and Anglican Christians in English until the modern period and it is still the most used among many Christians.

In the modern period there has been a proliferation of translations, some that are scholarly, others that are not quite so scholarly. All modern translations are based on the best available original source material, including both Masoretic and Septuagint sources. The first successful translation in English was the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which was prepared under Protestant auspices, but welcomed by the Catholic Church as a fairly literal translation. In the US, the New American Bible (NAB) was developed under Catholic auspices, and is the translation used in the Catholic Study Bible and in the American Roman Catholic Lectionary. The Jerusalem Bible was first a French Catholic project, but an analogous text (using the French textual notes and rules for translation, but making recourse to the original sources, not just translated from the French) was produced in English under the same title. There are numerous other translations, but those are the main ones in use in the US. (Sorry for the American bias, but that is what I know best. I would be interested in hearing a similar analysis for other places).

Dear Friends,

There are also scientific errors in the Old Testament outside of the deutero-canonical books.

For example, at that time people believed the sky was where there were oceans (which explained why it was blue and why moisture in the form of rain appeared from it from time to time, sometimes causing floods).

The Greek and Slavic Churches have differing lists of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals and these include about six more books and portions of books than the Vulgate.

The Ethiopian "narrow" text contains two more books on top of these, Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

The Ethiopian "wider" canon accepts the Ascension of Elias and a number of other books and other Oriental Churches allowed still other books.

The Ethiopian Church's New Testament Canon contains the additional 8 books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

Other Christian Churches often read Clement I as scripture and the Vulgate included it in an appendix with Clement II.

Some Churches accepted the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostles' Creed as New Testament deuterocanonicals, the Correspondence of Christ with King Abgar is an important part of the Armenian scriptural tradition.

And our liturgy has borrowed copiously from the deuterocanonical books describing the lives of St Andrew, St Joseph etc. and has transposed them into its liturgical prayers for the various feast-days etc.

Ultimately, this is a question about how we understand the canonization of scripture.

The Protestant tradition maintains that:

1) Somehow the Church has always recognized the books of the Old and New Testament as it has them today;

2) God but not the Church ensured that these books were preserved in their intended number for the faithful of all ages.

Both these points are ahistorical to begin with.

Alex

Almost...

They believed the waters were above the firmament (air) in what we would call outer space... and that the flow of the waters there accounted for the movements of the stars and sun - on the surface of these waters.

But seeing as the word 'outer space' would not be invented for a long time - using what words they had - they did pretty darn good.

Anyway...

just a little comment on nothing.

-ray

Dear Ray,

Yes, and what you said was also the reaction of my students when we discussed this matter in class last month - they were amazed at the in-depth understanding of people so many years ago!

Just a response to a comment on nothing . . .

(Actually, I think it is a good point)

Alex

Dear Friends,

And some of the apocryphal texts were actually written by orthodox Christians and given names that relate it to the Old Testament!

The Psalms of Solomon are, I believe, a case in point.

They were used as pre-Communion prayers by the early Church. I've found a copy in "The Lost Books of the Bible" and I can say that they are magnificent prayers that anyone can benefit from!

As I've said before, in 19th century England, the Anglicans developed a veneration for the Armenian deuterocanonical New Testament book, "Correspondence between Christ and Abgarus."

Pictures of the Holy Face of Christ were framed in Anglican homes together with a copy of that short correspondence.

Anglicans even petitioned Canterbury at that time to include that Correspondence in the . . . King James New Testament as an appendix!

Alex

I once got into an arguement with my uncle(who is Jewish)about the Deuterocanonical books. In frustration I finally asked him why he celebrated Purim(from Esther)and Channukah(Maccabees). He went silent while my mom, his sister, yelled out 'point scored, game to the Christian'.

Vie

As you know... cosmogony and classical philosophy are a great interest to me.

I have an absolutely wonderful book "Genesis in Egypt" by James P. Allen - it is out of print now but if you can find a copy it is well worth the read of its 67 pages.

Quite fascinating.

Birth, death, water, fire, animal, etc.. being used as a language of likeness for the �way things work� - long before terminology for �philosophy� was invented.

�The ancients lived in a world composed of not things, but of beings. Each element was composed of not only physical components by each is also an individual with a unique personality and will. The sky was not only the place where the sun appeared each day but it was also a goddess which gave birth to the sun in the Duat (unknown regions) and brought it forth each day�� now for people who did not know the earth was round and the earth goes around the sun while it also rotates - that is a pretty fair description of the human experience of sunset to sunrise - and where was the sun in the mean time?? In the Duat (unknown darkness and below the horizon)� they didn�t know and they said so.

Two things are a shame � first that early western scholars though the ancients were blithering idiots who grunted a lot - and second that these areas were left to the occult for so lang.

If is in your library - pick it up and thumb through it sometime. I think a used copy goes for over $100.00. I purchased mine for $12.00 (yippie).

I maintain that the peak of philosophy was reached centuries ago - probably between Plato and Aristotle - and it has been downhill ever since. Math was mastered long before Plato. Hey - you have to give the Greeks some credit - Pythagoras - he may have taken it from the Egyptians but he perfected it.

To tell the truth I see the low point of philosophy and religion - as the Rationalization that Europe still clings to - a complete denial of the mythical and spiritual depth of man. Worship of human intellect and human reason to explain away all the mysteries of religion. Yet the conscious part of man (reason) is only the tip of the iceberg. The subconscious mystery being the far greater part. Reason does not know Eros and about Eros Paul said "Though I speak with the tounge of angels and can explain all msyetries - what good is that if I do not have love."


The final result of the Reformation and the Frech Revolution is the rejection of tradition - being Europe today which has come to consider Christianity - to be the biggest cause of world problems.

I have no answers.

Cheers mate
-ray

Dear RayK,

Your last paragraph IS the answer!

Alex

Dear Ray, Christ is Risen!
I'm VERY confused ... What does Eros have to do with Saint Paul's words in I Corinthians, which you paraphased above?

Photius

You recognize it as a paraphrase - and you know what eros is - right?

What means eros - to you?

What do you think Paul is saying? Put it into your own words and make it simple.

-ray

Sorry... I was addressing Alex who has a fair amount of knowledge in the area of psychology and classical philosophy. It was a three-way play on the word �love� during a short side discussion lamenting the modern three way separation of {classical cosmogony / philosophy / and religion}. Alex is well suited to understand my play on the word.

Perhaps your own confusion may arise from your definition of eros.

As used by Greeks it is a personification of the human emotion of an attraction to something. A motivation. A movement of strength towards something (anything).

The love of a musician for music.
The love of the artist for art.
The love of a father for his family.
The love of a addict for his addiction.
The love of a man for a woman.
The love of a man for God.
Etc�

Perhaps you are thinking of the way Freud adopted it From Greek myth - and restricted it to just sexual attraction. And so today the word is generally corrupted from its original meaning.

In any event - Paul was referring to the first commandment ("what good is that if I do not have love.") which commandment Jesus interpreted for us ("You shall love the Lord your God with you whole heart and mind and all your strength�).

This love, in the terms of psychology and Greek cosmology is called eros - a very strong attraction with intend to union.

Comfusion just the thing I was lamenting.

-ray

Dear Ray, Christ is Risen!
Perhaps there's something that I'm still not understanding, but I find your reply even more confusing.
I know Greek, and my definition is based on what it means in Greek.
There are four Greek words which are all usually translated into English as "love". Eros means sexual desire; the Greek god Eros is the analogue of the Roman god Cupid. Freud did not corrupt the meaning of "eros".
"Agape" is the word translated as "love" in all those examples; "eros" is not used anywhere in the New Testament.

Photius

Dear Photius;

Since you seem genuine in your question I will do my best to answer it in the short space of posts.

While not an expert of the Greek language, I am aware of the several forms which the English translates into the one word �love�. And I am aware of their common meaning in Greek language. And I do not doubt that in the Greek language eros has the common meaning of sexual desire.

But the word eros is used in Greek mythology (cosmology or cosmogonies) as the personification of any desire and strong attraction. Sexual desire is a type easily known by all - because all have felt its pull.

The Song of Songs - is spoken in the words of eros - sexual desire - toward union with the beloved. The wording is rather lush and there can be no doubt to its literal meaning. God often describes, in the prophets, the relationship between Israel (the betrothed ) and God (the groom) for reason of each having desire for the other - and the union (consummation) of that desire (the goal of the attraction)� to the extent that God later calls Israel his �daughter� implying a child had by result of an earlier union that had been consummated (when Israel was obedient to Yahweh). And so, in light of that earlier union God will sometimes calls Israel his son and sometimes his daughter - depending on things I will not explain here.

Israel is to be like a virgin (desire for her husband alone). Yet �she� goes wanton and lays with all her lovers.

The wedding at Cannan - kicked off the years of the public ministry of Jesus - and in typical Jewish way - the start of anything was also the concise summation of what followed - and so the wedding - becomes the over riding theme and goal of his three years public ministry. And how often did Jesus compare sanctification to the desire between man and woman - bride and groom?? Several times he describes the kingdom of heaven as a wedding - but even further than a wedding and even right down to the moment of the consummation of the marriage. You see the bridesmaids waiting outside the house in the evening - with oil lamps lighted in the twilight - were waiting for the groom to arrive - lighted the way for the groom to enter the house and lay with his new wife - and consummate the marriage through union. The marriage was not complete until this union took place and was announced to the whole town. I believe the Church does not consider a married sealed - until the act of consummation.

And the desert fathers talk of the spiritual stages - leading to the last stage of - the mystical marriage - and of course full union is implicit.

So while the Greek word eros is perhaps never used in scriptures - eros - according to its common meaning of strong sexual desire - is certainly pervasive in the old and new testament - as our desire for God and God�s desire for us.

C. G. Jung points to Freud as the turning point - when eros - became entirely restricted and limited to - a meaning of only sexual desire (as Freud�s theme was that man built up tension and that tension was released trough sexual activity - or else boiled over into mental difficulties). Erick Fromm and Rollo May (noted psychiatrists) agree that �eros� the word became entirely restricted to sexual desire - with Freud - after Freud - because of Freud. Newton swept the world - and so did Darwin - and so did Freud. So much so that we are really unaware how much their gospels - without a doubt - influence us today. By these guys were not the cause - they were simply the symptoms.

In any event - eros - as far as the cosmogonies of the Greeks (and a cosmogony or theogony is nothing more than the concepts of philosophy and religion done by use of personifications of man�s own inner experiences) eros is a personification of our experience of being strongly attracted to - anything (not restricted to sex alone). As such - it is the foundation of all �loves� - be it agape or philia or the sexual expression of eros. These three, when considered literally, are modes of expression.

Now very few people mistake the mystical marriage spoken of by the church - as a sexual encounter with God. So we do not take that - in a literal sense (I suppose a few do). That is a reversal of the spiritual meaning. And we should not take eros - in that way either.

In Hesiod - Eros is - the impulse to production. One could take that in a sexual way because sexual union produces child� but that act of - producing - is called �generation� and we uses that for family tree - and in Greek it is genesis - which is why the Jewish book of Bereshith is called Genesis by the Greeks.

In Paremenides we find evidence that Chaos and Eros - were pre-Hesiod and Homer - and these two (Chaos and Eros) were coined by those before both. Indeed Eros and Chaos were created before any other god and between the two Eros was created first (meaning it rules over chaos). This is to say that man�s desire to produce - himself - out into the seemingly chaotic world he experiences - is base primary.

Let man have dominion over all the earth - and all that is it - multiply and fill it - and subdue it.

We find that reflected in the Hebrew cosmogony by way of saying that man has great desire to produce himself into his environment (adam = man and adamah = his environment - meaning adam is reflected into his environment - or the environment is composed of adam).

No doubt if we came over to your house Photius - and looked around at the walls and floor and things about - they would reflect your own personality. An exteriorizing - of your inner self. The first and primary impulse of any man is to create order into his environment - and the order he creates is a reflection of what is inside himself.

These things seem really complicated but they are really not. They are basic and simple - but those who did not understand them well - and pretended to understand them fully - complicated this stuff to us.

Eros - the first of the gods - is that impulse by the new baby - to express its inner desire - exteriorly. In other words to produce himself into the exterior world. Example: cry when hungry. Smile when happy. Reach to touch. Reach to move things. Make sounds in desire to communicate.

So you see� eros is not restricted by those who coined the name - to just and only - sexual desire.

Photius? Did you take this name after Photius of Contantinople??

I am not real sure but I think that the name Pho-ti-us is a phonetic of py-th-a-us and may have a meaning of - oracles. One who speaks God. If you know what it means please tell me.

Cheers
-ray