http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/12/gems-from-shepherd-of-hermas.html
In light of recent statements regarding the Early Church
Fathers I was asked to elaborate and perhaps defend some issues regarding the
Old Testament Apocrypha. This issue has gnawed at me for years and as I have
worked through the narratives and claims of the Magisterial Reformation I finally
came to a conclusion that its positions and arguments concerning these books are
highly problematic. As I have repeatedly stated, this does not grant anything
to Rome. That's not really the issue here.
Nor is the question of whether or not these writings are
deemed to be edifying or of practical benefit. It's astonishing to me, but some
seem to think that's a sufficient argument for their dismissal. Again, that's
not really the issue at stake and yet actually I would argue they are in some
cases notably of doctrinal benefit and edifying. But such criteria are
subjective and that's beyond what I hope to address.
Thinking back several years, I think what startled me most
was to discover just how disingenuous and in some cases deceptive Protestant
arguments are when it comes to this issue. Though it's a separate topic, I'm
afraid contemporary arguments regarding the New Testament Critical Text and its
defense are what planted a seed of cynicism. I encountered some of these
dubious and sometimes dishonest narratives as I entered into the Reformed
sphere over twenty-five years ago. It was eye-opening to find people engaged in
manipulation and dishonesty regarding their own Confessional tradition. And
then I came to find out that they (and indeed the larger post-Reformation
heritage) have also employed likewise dubious and self-serving arguments when
it comes to the Old Testament canon. In this latter case, the roots run deeper
than nineteenth century Princetonian re-castings of inerrancy and its promotion
of textual reconstruction.
No, as bad and as dubious as that historical chapter was, the
arguments I refer to are older, rooted in the Confessional tradition and
Protestant Scholasticism's interaction with the Old Testament. Even then,
turning to the likes of Turretin et al., I found a great deal of misinformation
about the Old Testament canon and a commitment cast more in terms of a
historical (but contradictory) narrative and a larger body of doctrinal
coherence than anything rooted in the actual historical or Biblical record.
Basically, what I was discovering was in both generations, adherence to narratives
and other commitments seemed to dominate these questions and override what
should be real concerns.
First, what of the argument that these books are not part of
the Jewish canon? It's not nearly that simple and though the claim is made and
seems prima facie plausible, it's not a solid one by any means.
The question of the Jewish canon was not really settled until
the Christian era. While the Jamnia Council-argument has been discredited by
many, it seems clear enough that the Jewish leaders – essentially the
descendants of the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament, began to
specifically exclude the Septuagint (LXX) by the end of the first and/or
beginning of the second century AD.
There are reasons to believe that this was at least in part a
response to the heavy Christian use of the LXX and how it was a vehicle by
which the Old Testament was accessible to the larger Hellenistic culture. Rejecting
the LXX restricted or walled off 'true' access to the Old Testament – limiting
it to the Hebrew which of course made it largely inaccessible to the Gentile
world. It was at this point, in which the LXX was rejected, that the narrative
was set in stone regarding the prophetic ending of the Old Testament within the
time frame of Ezra – Malachi.
Protestants of course have picked up on this and constructed
a narrative about the 400 years of intertestamental silence and so forth – a
great deal of this being speculative and nowhere taught in the New Testament or
(that I know of) in the Early Church.
This move made by the Jewish leadership laid the groundwork
for the authoritative claims surrounding the Hebrew textual tradition that
would eventually come to be known as the Masoretic Text, the basis for almost
all English translations of the Old Testament. But it must be remembered that
these Jewish scribal leaders were not just rejecting the LXX (and by
implication the 'Apocrypha' or longer canon), but also the New Testament or the
possibility of any additional revelation. As David Bercot has rightly argued,
why should the reasoning or proclamations of such a group carry any weight
among Christians?
Protestants have tended to dislike some of the suggested
doctrines in the Apocrypha, often missing the fact that for (at least many) of
the Jews these writings were at one time an integral part of the LXX and
therefore the Old Testament. Additionally this edition of Old Covenant writings
was used by the Early Church – and heavily relied upon within the New Testament
itself. And it needs to be understood, it wasn't like these writings were part
of some appendix that could just be ignored as many seem to think was the case.
They were not in a separate section or category. They were fully integrated,
not placed after Malachi which in any case (until Protestant times) was not
reckoned the last book of the Old Testament. In previous editions of the Old
Testament, the Minor Prophets were placed before the Major and under such an arrangement
the narrative so assumed by Protestants today is less obvious as it relies in
no small part on the Malachi-Matthew transition.
Also, these books and writings (in some cases) point strongly
to Christ – to the point that later liberal scholars believed they had to be
composed in the Christian era, a point that is manifestly false. Portions of
the wisdom literature in the Apocrypha seem to anticipate many of Christ's
teachings in the Sermon on the Mount as well and thus were popular and were
enthusiastically utilised by groups like the Waldensians. Ecclesiasticus for
example clearly discourages the use of oaths and thus was held in high esteem
by the medieval underground. The first and second century Jews also recognized
that the Apocrypha at times clearly pointed to Christ and his teachings in the
gospels, and it is likely this factor played a role in their dismissal of the
LXX. They didn't like the accessibility of the Greek, the way it was utilised
by the Church, the way it was used and frequently quoted in the New Testament,
and in some cases they didn't like the content of some of these books and
therefore it was likely they decided to just dispense with the legitimacy of
the LXX altogether and make a clean break.
Revisiting a point I made in the Hermas piece, the fact that
there were several extant Hebrew textual traditions (beyond the proto-Masoretic
Text) is further evidenced by the finds at Qumran – usually assumed to be associated
with the Essenes. They have some of the books of the 'Apocrypha' and of course
many others as well – in Hebrew. This testifies to the fact that the LXX wasn't
just a bad or loose translation but was likely rooted in another (now largely
lost) Hebrew text – which sometimes parallels but often differs from the
Masoretic. That text is preserved in the LXX – and the Early Church recognized
it as authoritative. The fact that it was an Old Testament in Greek as opposed
to Hebrew was not an issue – as its usage by New Testament authors also makes
clear.
It would seem there were open questions as to the canon and
what texts were or were not legitimate and so the argument can be made that the
Jewish leadership in light of the rise of Christianity and the apocalyptic
proclivities of certain groups decided (post-70AD) to resolve this question
which at that time was still somewhat open – at least to them. Again for the
Church there was no issue. It already had an Old Testament that it used – the
Septuagint – with its longer canon.
Some of the Anti-Apocrypha polemics at this point make an
appeal to Josephus and his canon count. And yet Josephus himself seems to have
utilised the LXX or again, perhaps a Hebrew text other than what became the
Masoretic (MT), which isn't a problem for me but it would discredit him in the
eyes of the defenders and advocates of the MT. At which point, one would think
they would dismiss any reference to canon coming from him.
To state it in a slightly different manner - if Josephus
seems to follow the LXX in many places but claims he was working from the
Hebrew text, it testifies to a Hebrew Old Testament textual tradition apart
from the proto-MT. The Early Church told us which way to go on this. They
clearly chose the LXX over the proto-MT and if the Hebrew text that undergirded
the LXX is largely lost – it doesn't matter. We have the LXX as the preserved
text. Our primary canon is the New Testament anyway and we always read the Old
in light of it, but apparently the LXX is sufficient. Again, some of the
confusion today stems from the Princetonian neo-inerrancy position which relies
on an endless and fruitless quest for a reconstructed autograph which alone is
inerrant. Again this differs from the historic position of a providentially
preserved infallible text. The fact that we don't have the original Hebrew
which undergirded the LXX is not an issue.
Additionally it could be argued the finds at Qumran also
testify to the fact that the MT cannot make any kind of claim that it alone is
the faithful text. A decision was made by the unbelieving Jews – and made after
the Church was well established. Such a proclamation by the Jews in this
Christian context should have no bearing at all and largely didn't (it would
seem) until about the fourth century. At that time, their arguments began to be
embraced by some.
Further, if Josephus utilised the LXX, why then didn't he
criticise the supposedly distorted canon and its additions? And if he didn't
use it – then what text was he using that seems to agree with the LXX in most
cases? This is a problem advocates of the Masoretic Text don't seem willing to
entertain.
The book count of Josephus is hard to reconcile with the
Masoretic Text as it would still miss at least a book or two. But such a
generalized list is almost impossible to work with and despite some of the
definitive statements one finds out there, in actuality his canon list is less
than clear. There's no basis to group Judges and Ruth or Jeremiah and
Lamentations as the latter is often classified as wisdom literature. Such
'counts' all depend on how the historical and wisdom books are counted and
grouped. As evidenced in other places there are times in which the wisdom books
are grouped as one entity or unit. This can either be the Five – Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon or the Seven – which adds Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
and Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon to the list. As said, some counts even add
Lamentations. The histories and Minor Prophets are often grouped together as
well, leaving such lists too vague to be of great use.
Regardless of all this and as interesting as Josephus is –
why is he taken as authoritative? He's a contemporary of the aforementioned
period – the period in which the Jews were (in response to Christianity)
solidifying their canonical claims. He's a reliable source for early post-Christian
Judaism and perhaps early rabbinical Judaism, not for pre-Christian Judaism.
And it goes without saying he cannot speak for the Church when it comes to its
understanding of the Old Testament and its canon.