While the aforementioned councils of Late Antiquity were not 'ecumenical' councils – a point some make to argue their canon proclamations weren't considered universally authoritative – such an argument or appeal proves too much.
First, the Apocrypha was certainly considered canonical by
the Church of the Middle Ages. And secondly, there are many issues and rulings
associated with the so-called Ecumenical Councils that Protestants do not
accept, and thus do not view as universally binding either. This is further
confused by the fact that contemporary Protestants tend to view Rome as the legitimate
Church during the Middle Ages and yet cannot account for Protestantism's
arbitrary and selective utilisation of said councils nor the fact that suddenly
(and arbitrarily) they decide to quit accepting any of them past Chalcedon. In
other words (once again) there's a narrative at work here and yet why should we
accept it or its nebulous criteria? And what if it's wrong?
Unless one is going to adopt a kind of Second Pentecost
approach – which some Protestants have functionally taken with regard to the
sixteenth century Reformation, then the narrative is subject to scrutiny and
frankly, the more it's examined, the less convincing it is – on this point and
others. The Magisterial Reformation was at points a healthy and robust
corrective to the false Christianity of Rome but it was a far cry from being a
revival of Early Christianity let alone a repristination of the New Testament
Church. It remedied some points and yet also planted some very destructive
seeds which would bear fruit in subsequent generations. It was a mixed blessing
at best.
Returning to the matter at hand, why does everyone allow
Jerome to win at this point? In keeping with his often dubious views, at this
juncture he aligns his arguments with the unbelieving Jews who were trying to
discredit the LXX. Consequently we got a bad translation from a text that was (even
in his day) viewed as somewhat controversial. He certainly muddied the waters.
For Rome, apart from a functional repudiation of his doubt concerning the books
(now called by some Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha), the matter was secondary as
the subsequent focus was on the Jerome's Latin Vulgate first produced in the
380's. For several reasons beyond the scope of this piece, it would come to
dominate Catholic textual focus and some of Jerome's errors in translation
would bear doctrinal fruit in the following centuries.
To add another layer of confusion to the contemporary debate,
many Catholic traditionalists treat the textually eclectic Latin Vulgate in
terms of a kind of Double-Inspiration, another Pentecost as it were, thus
paralleling the most extreme forms of the King James Only faction. The great
irony here is that the 1611 King James Bible contained the Apocrypha – as did the
Geneva Bible of 1560 and many Protestant Bibles for decades and centuries
after. In the case of these Vulgate-fixated Catholics, (like the KJV-only
extremists) the issue is not the Greek or Hebrew texts but (frankly heretical)
narratives surrounding Divine Inspiration in connection to these Latin and
English translations respectively.
Right or wrong, many Protestants want on the one hand to
'claim' the medieval heritage of Rome but on this and many other points they
don't seem to grasp how far they are removed from any kind of actual organic
connection. The Apocrypha was part of the Old Testament of the Early Church
fathers, of Augustine, Leo, Gregory, Boniface, the Scholastics, and Bernard.
That should make some Protestants pause but again, many have embraced a form of
Arrested Progressive Orthodoxy – theology was in flux and the boundaries of
orthodoxy were broad until the time of the Magisterial Reformation. Then over
the course of about 150 years everything became more or less fixed and those
who might have been reckoned Christians prior – are now reckoned as lost.
Actually for me the roll call mentioned above carries little
weight – with the exception of the Early Church Fathers. Of greater interest to
me is that it was the Old Testament canon of not just the Early Church and men
like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of
Alexandria, the author of the Didache, and Cyprian, but also the Waldensians, Petr
Chelcicky, Wycliffe, the Lollards, most of the Hussites, and so forth. Until
the sixteenth century, this was the Old Testament everyone used.
The Magisterial Reformation and its Confessional tradition
broke with these books. Suddenly in the sixteenth century the reform movement (following
in the flawed footsteps of Martin Luther) starts to question the Old Testament
canon – again in part because of misunderstandings that it somehow promoted
certain Roman Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and prayers for the dead – which
isn't actually true.
Luther also questioned and effectively subordinated multiple
books in the New Testament, added words to its text (as in Romans 3), and
basically initiated a process of appealing to internal coherence over the traditional
and accepted canon. This move created 'problem texts' and rather than re-shape
his thinking and theology it led him to discount and dismiss parts of Scripture
– and it made it very easy to later dispense with texts under the aegis of
textual criticism. The Calvinist wing of the Reformation did not go to this
extreme, but it too adopted the argument which modified the Old Testament
canon. In some respects Luther could be accused of re-kindling Marcion's
project but he didn't follow through. Few people realize to just what extent
Luther was willing to manipulate the text and canon in order to fit his views.
If he arose in today's context and made his views and approach to Scripture
known, he would be undoubtedly denounced as a heretic.
And yet the historical sensibility at this point takes such a
strange turn. Again, it was Bercot who raised the point – and it's a valid one.
Protestants tend to think of Rome as being guilty of adding books to the Bible. In fact it's quite the opposite. Rome at
the time of the birth of the Papacy and in the early stages of what became Roman Catholicism gave Jerome a platform
and voice, and allowed him to the lay the groundwork for their removal. And indeed in the post-Nicene period there were
minority voices that began to adopt the Jewish reasoning associated with what
would become the Masoretic Text. And while the Apocrypha was retained, these
voices (led by Jerome) created the platform for later thinkers, theologians,
and critics to question its validity – voices the Reformers could appeal to in
their arguments for its removal.
Without Jerome and the subsequent (and less than clear) Roman
tradition, it may be presumed that the Protestant Church today would still use
the LXX as the basis for Old Testament translations and that would (or should)
include the Apocrypha. This would be in keeping with the Early Church and is
certainly still the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy as they retain
these writings and use the LXX as their Old Testament.
In some respects this is all rather stunning when you take it
in. We don't think in these terms because we've all grown up with our
Protestant Old Testaments. But just imagine – some reformer comes along fifteen
centuries after the apostles and starts questioning the text of both the Old
and New Testaments? Again I wonder how people would respond to that today?
Given the vitriolic way Protestants respond to arguments in favour of the Old
Testament Apocrypha, I think we have some indication.
But it has only gotten worse since the time of Luther. In
today's post-Enlightenment context, large segments of conservative
Evangelicalism don't like some of the angelic and demonic activity portrayed in
these books – no more than they like what Genesis 6 plainly teaches about
angels and the nephilim. Once again never mind the fact that this is what the
Church almost universally believed until modern times and in fact the New
Testament effectively confirms this teaching in its related commentary found in
2 Peter and Jude. The now dominant Sethite-Cainite hypothesis is not a viable
option, but an untenable and exegetical cop-out that doesn't deal faithfully
with the text. Once again, commitments to theological coherence and cultural
epistemological norms (that make such a reading embarrassing) win the day.
Some of the material in the Apocrypha seems outlandish to
modern sensibilities. How often do I hear, "Just read it. It's self
evident that it's not Scripture!"
Well, such subjective criteria won't quite cut it. Yes, it
may seem bizarre but in reality no more than other Scriptural stories such as
the plot of Hosea, Jephthah and his daughter (and many of the stories in Judges
for that matter), Balaam's donkey, Jacob wrestling with the angel, God sending
an evil spirit to trouble Saul, the Witch of Endor's necromancy, the Genesis 6
episode, the angel in the Pool of Bethesda and the like. I realize that many
have attempted to effectively explain away these issues as well – rendering
them in terms that are credible and safe for a post-Enlightenment audience or
once again by means of attacking the text in the tradition of Luther's coherence
criticism and the 'scholarly' war on Scripture his legacy initiated.
A great deal more could be said about the supernaturalistic
elements and worldview and the ambiguous language accompanying these realities
present in the Old Testament. This worldview also exists in the New Testament –
even if once again many of these incidents, indirect references, and accepted
realities are often explained away by today's 'conservative' scholars.
As far as historical problems with some of the Apocrypha, it's
nothing that we don't encounter elsewhere such as the puzzle in identifying Darius
the Mede or some of the other chronological, genealogical and even prophetic tangles.
There are solutions and explanations to these, just as there are to the
supposed historical and geographical dilemmas found in the Apocrypha. For that
matter most 'conservative' Evangelicals have embraced so many arguments
provided by the academy that they wreak havoc on the rest of the text. For
example many in accepting the bogus late dating of the Exodus have had to
mangle Judges in order to make the chronology work. In that case they have created
a problem that isn't there and one that contradicts what the New Testament says
about these questions.
In the end, a less than fixed Jewish canon doesn't really
matter that much as it all must be interpreted in light of the New Testament.
At the very least to hang everything on the Masoretic Text is a problem as it
was not the textual basis of the Old Testament of the Early Church or in the
vast majority of cases – the Old Testament being utilised by figures and authors
within the New Testament itself. The New Testament almost overwhelmingly quotes
the LXX, or in other cases a text that neither perfectly matches it or the
Masoretic Text. An acceptance of the LXX doesn't necessitate the embrace of the
so-called Apocrypha, but given all the other factors, it's hard to argue
otherwise. I will admit there are some debates over exactly which books
constitute the Old Testament Apocrypha. I would appeal to the LXX, the books
begrudgingly included by Jerome in the Vulgate, and those included in early
Protestant Bibles – even the 1560 Geneva and 1611 King James versions.
This is really upsetting to some and would have been to me at
one time. Once a fervent adherent to the Magisterial Reformation, I laboured
for years to zealously defend its narratives and arguments. But over time the
defects in its theology became manifest and then the historical problems and
anomalies became rather glaring. And finally when one puts these together,
there's a real problem at hand. And this is part of the context for this whole
exploration.