Apocryphal Jewish Tradition in the New Testament

by Leolaia 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

DanTheMan

Where in the world do you get all this information?????
peacefulpete

not directly connected but I found the Balaam tradition evolution interesting. The Talmud says he prophesied from his "membrum" this means his anus or penis depending on context. He also made love to his donkey. Funny how this guy started out as a prophet of YHWH but became the embodiment of everything wrong.
ThiChi

"Conclusions" based on the "Apocrypha" or "patristic authors" seems to be a useless exercise, considering the facts.
As an example let us look at the reasoning of the "Adam & Eve question" based on the "accepted" word of God (I can provide more counter-examples of your other claims, however, I don?t have the time):
Adam was not fooled by Satan, but he was persuaded by Eve (Gen. 3:17). Eve said, ""The serpent tricked me"" (Gen. 3:13, TLB). Last in creation, Eve was first in sin. The serpent knew Eve was weaker and so tempted her, not Adam. Eve gave in to the temptations and trickery of Satan, while Adam gave in to his love for her. Satan stands first to be judged before God, the woman next, and the man last (Gen. 3:14-19). In Romans 5:12, Adam is represented as the first sinner, but there is no reference to Eve; thus, Adam is regarded as the head of the sinning race. And so here (2:11) and there (Gen. 3:16), the woman??s ""subjection"" is represented as the result of her being deceived.
When examined in context, the situation is not as "dramatic" or as "Sinister" as you paint it.
The first question which ought to be asked and answered is, "Why should Christians look to the Jews for answers concerning the extent of the Old Testament canon?" The reason is found in the testimony of the inspired writing of Paul in Romans,
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)
By the testimony of God's Word we see that the Jews had been given the responsibility and privilege of protecting, transmitting, and propagating the Scriptures, the inspired writings given as revelation by God to man. Hence, it is to the Jews, and to the general consensus which they had developed before the time of Christ, which we should first look.
It was by this division that the Hebrew Old Testaments were bound in the scrolls. The apocryphal books did not appear among these scriptures in any of the three divisions. The reason for this is simple: The Jews did not consider the apocryphal works to be inspired scripture, and the testimony of Jewish authorities on this matter confirms that the Jews considered the prophetic, inspiring spirit to have departed from Israel during the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (468-425 BC).
Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates that his opinion was the general and prevailing one among his countrymen, said thus,
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..."
Here, we see Josephus relating several important pieces of information. First, we see that a closed canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and before his time, for he speaks of the books written after the time of Artaxerxes as being less esteemed by the Jewish forefathers. Thus, it was not just Jews in his day (in the latter part of the 1st century AD) reacting to some supposed Christian use of the Apocrypha (which didn't come until later, actually, and was far less prevalent than some would have us to believe) who rejected the apocryphal books. This body of literature was also rejected as canon and held in lower esteem by Jews in the intertestamental period long before the Christian era.
Second, we see that Josephus confirms the departure of the prophetic spirit from Israel after the time of Artaxerxes (thus, the canon ended with Nehemiah, Ezra, Malachi, and the Chronicles, all of which were written during the period of Artaxerxes Longimanus' reign, circa 450-425 BC). Third, we also see that Josephus particularly ascribes divine status to the books written before or during Artaxerxes' reign, which was pointedly denied to those written after.
we see that this ancient testimony to the Jewish canon was affirmed by Jewish religious leaders in the Christian era. In AD 90, the so-called "Council" of Jamnia was assembled in the coastal town of Jamnia. Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant historians make much of this council, basically casting it as some sort of formal Jewish religious council which was convened for the express purpose of determining the Jewish canon. Further then, many Catholic apologists take up this line of reasoning and state that the Jewish council of rabbis determined a smaller canon than had been used before this time, as a reaction to the Christians who were proving so successful at propagating their faith with the larger (i.e. Catholic) canon which included the Apocrypha. They will say that the Jewish rabbis arbitrarily decided to throw out the apocryphal books since they were being used to such great success by Christians in converting Jews and others to their religion. Of course, this argument falls short for several reasons.
If the Jews were going to get rid of books which Christians were using to great effect in proving the claims of Jesus as the Messiah, then they would also have had to have gotten rid of such books as Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, and the Psalms, for we readily see the testimony of the early church from both the Bible and from the apostolic and post-apostolic patristic writers as to their heavy reliance on books such as these to prove the claims made about Christ. In fact, the testimony of the patristic writers, which will be investigated in much greater detail below, shows very little reliance upon the apocryphal works until at least two centuries AFTER Christ, and over a century after Jamnia. The sub-apostolic authors, who wrote at and shortly after the time of Jamnia, were almost completely silent regarding the Apocrypha, and the few places where they quote or allude to these books show no reliance upon them for actual teaching of doctrine or practice.
Further, we should note
the apocryphal books do not contain the mark of propheticity upon them (they contain errors, contradictions internally, and contradictions with canonical books). The one passage in an apocryphal book routinely relied upon by supporters of the Apocrypha as providing an "important" Messianic prophecy (Wisdom 2:12-20) actually contradicts doctrine concerning the Lord Jesus taught in the Gospels.
While much is made of the presence of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, and that this presence in a translation viewed by many (though not all) in the early church as inspired necessarily means that the Apocrypha was also viewed as such, we find no clear evidence that these books were even considered to be part and parcel with the Septuagint as a united body of literature until well into the 3rd century.
Similarity between themes found in the apocryphal books and the true canon are also not an argument for the canonicity of the Apocrypha. As a religious people who enjoyed special contact with and revelation from God, it is not surprising that a knowledge of the holy, however diluted it may have eventually become because of apostasy, would be passed down through the generations of Israel (see Psalm 78:4-6). Thus, one would expect to see similar themes, obtained and understood from the true canon, presented in later works of literature which were produced. And in fact, one does see this in the apocryphal works. The books of the Apocrypha do contain much truth, but it is truth which is derived from the true canon of the Old Testament, and is in an adulterated form. Much of the supposed reliance of the New Testament upon the apocryphal books stems from this. Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be viewed as belonging to this category of "general truths". These truths, based upon the Truth of God's Word, would naturally also appear in literature which was consciously patterned after the earlier canonical literature. However, this doesn't lend inspiration to these books themselves.
ThiChi

"Conclusions" based on the "Apocrypha" or "patristic authors" seems to be a useless exercise, considering the facts.
As an example let us look at the reasoning of the "Adam & Eve question" based on the "accepted" word of God (I can provide more counter-examples of your other claims, however, I don?t have the time):
Adam was not fooled by Satan, but he was persuaded by Eve (Gen. 3:17). Eve said, ""The serpent tricked me"" (Gen. 3:13, TLB). Last in creation, Eve was first in sin. The serpent knew Eve was weaker and so tempted her, not Adam. Eve gave in to the temptations and trickery of Satan, while Adam gave in to his love for her. Satan stands first to be judged before God, the woman next, and the man last (Gen. 3:14-19). In Romans 5:12, Adam is represented as the first sinner, but there is no reference to Eve; thus, Adam is regarded as the head of the sinning race. And so here (2:11) and there (Gen. 3:16), the woman??s ""subjection"" is represented as the result of her being deceived.
When examined in context, the situation is not as "dramatic" or as "Sinister" as you paint it.
The first question which ought to be asked and answered is, "Why should Christians look to the Jews for answers concerning the extent of the Old Testament canon?" The reason is found in the testimony of the inspired writing of Paul in Romans,
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)
By the testimony of God's Word we see that the Jews had been given the responsibility and privilege of protecting, transmitting, and propagating the Scriptures, the inspired writings given as revelation by God to man. Hence, it is to the Jews, and to the general consensus which they had developed before the time of Christ, which we should first look.
It was by this division that the Hebrew Old Testaments were bound in the scrolls. The apocryphal books did not appear among these scriptures in any of the three divisions. The reason for this is simple: The Jews did not consider the apocryphal works to be inspired scripture, and the testimony of Jewish authorities on this matter confirms that the Jews considered the prophetic, inspiring spirit to have departed from Israel during the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (468-425 BC).
Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates that his opinion was the general and prevailing one among his countrymen, said thus,
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..."
Here, we see Josephus relating several important pieces of information. First, we see that a closed canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and before his time, for he speaks of the books written after the time of Artaxerxes as being less esteemed by the Jewish forefathers. Thus, it was not just Jews in his day (in the latter part of the 1st century AD) reacting to some supposed Christian use of the Apocrypha (which didn't come until later, actually, and was far less prevalent than some would have us to believe) who rejected the apocryphal books. This body of literature was also rejected as canon and held in lower esteem by Jews in the intertestamental period long before the Christian era.
Second, we see that Josephus confirms the departure of the prophetic spirit from Israel after the time of Artaxerxes (thus, the canon ended with Nehemiah, Ezra, Malachi, and the Chronicles, all of which were written during the period of Artaxerxes Longimanus' reign, circa 450-425 BC). Third, we also see that Josephus particularly ascribes divine status to the books written before or during Artaxerxes' reign, which was pointedly denied to those written after.
we see that this ancient testimony to the Jewish canon was affirmed by Jewish religious leaders in the Christian era. In AD 90, the so-called "Council" of Jamnia was assembled in the coastal town of Jamnia. Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant historians make much of this council, basically casting it as some sort of formal Jewish religious council which was convened for the express purpose of determining the Jewish canon. Further then, many Catholic apologists take up this line of reasoning and state that the Jewish council of rabbis determined a smaller canon than had been used before this time, as a reaction to the Christians who were proving so successful at propagating their faith with the larger (i.e. Catholic) canon which included the Apocrypha. They will say that the Jewish rabbis arbitrarily decided to throw out the apocryphal books since they were being used to such great success by Christians in converting Jews and others to their religion. Of course, this argument falls short for several reasons.
If the Jews were going to get rid of books which Christians were using to great effect in proving the claims of Jesus as the Messiah, then they would also have had to have gotten rid of such books as Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, and the Psalms, for we readily see the testimony of the early church from both the Bible and from the apostolic and post-apostolic patristic writers as to their heavy reliance on books such as these to prove the claims made about Christ. In fact, the testimony of the patristic writers, which will be investigated in much greater detail below, shows very little reliance upon the apocryphal works until at least two centuries AFTER Christ, and over a century after Jamnia. The sub-apostolic authors, who wrote at and shortly after the time of Jamnia, were almost completely silent regarding the Apocrypha, and the few places where they quote or allude to these books show no reliance upon them for actual teaching of doctrine or practice.
Further, we should note
the apocryphal books do not contain the mark of propheticity upon them (they contain errors, contradictions internally, and contradictions with canonical books). The one passage in an apocryphal book routinely relied upon by supporters of the Apocrypha as providing an "important" Messianic prophecy (Wisdom 2:12-20) actually contradicts doctrine concerning the Lord Jesus taught in the Gospels.
While much is made of the presence of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, and that this presence in a translation viewed by many (though not all) in the early church as inspired necessarily means that the Apocrypha was also viewed as such, we find no clear evidence that these books were even considered to be part and parcel with the Septuagint as a united body of literature until well into the 3rd century.
Similarity between themes found in the apocryphal books and the true canon are also not an argument for the canonicity of the Apocrypha. As a religious people who enjoyed special contact with and revelation from God, it is not surprising that a knowledge of the holy, however diluted it may have eventually become because of apostasy, would be passed down through the generations of Israel (see Psalm 78:4-6). Thus, one would expect to see similar themes, obtained and understood from the true canon, presented in later works of literature which were produced. And in fact, one does see this in the apocryphal works. The books of the Apocrypha do contain much truth, but it is truth which is derived from the true canon of the Old Testament, and is in an adulterated form. Much of the supposed reliance of the New Testament upon the apocryphal books stems from this. Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be viewed as belonging to this category of "general truths". These truths, based upon the Truth of God's Word, would naturally also appear in literature which was consciously patterned after the earlier canonical literature. However, this doesn't lend inspiration to these books themselves.
ThiChi

"Conclusions" based on the "Apocrypha" or "patristic authors" seems to be a useless exercise, considering the facts.
As an example let us look at the reasoning of the "Adam & Eve question" based on the "accepted" word of God (I can provide more counter-examples of your other claims, however, I don?t have the time):
Adam was not fooled by Satan, but he was persuaded by Eve (Gen. 3:17). Eve said, ""The serpent tricked me"" (Gen. 3:13, TLB). Last in creation, Eve was first in sin. The serpent knew Eve was weaker and so tempted her, not Adam. Eve gave in to the temptations and trickery of Satan, while Adam gave in to his love for her. Satan stands first to be judged before God, the woman next, and the man last (Gen. 3:14-19). In Romans 5:12, Adam is represented as the first sinner, but there is no reference to Eve; thus, Adam is regarded as the head of the sinning race. And so here (2:11) and there (Gen. 3:16), the woman??s ""subjection"" is represented as the result of her being deceived.
When examined in context, the situation is not as "dramatic" or as "Sinister" as you paint it.
The first question which ought to be asked and answered is, "Why should Christians look to the Jews for answers concerning the extent of the Old Testament canon?" The reason is found in the testimony of the inspired writing of Paul in Romans,
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)
By the testimony of God's Word we see that the Jews had been given the responsibility and privilege of protecting, transmitting, and propagating the Scriptures, the inspired writings given as revelation by God to man. Hence, it is to the Jews, and to the general consensus which they had developed before the time of Christ, which we should first look.
The Jews did not consider the apocryphal works to be inspired scripture, and the testimony of Jewish authorities on this matter confirms that the Jews considered the prophetic, inspiring spirit to have departed from Israel during the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (468-425 BC).
Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates that his opinion was the general and prevailing one among his countrymen, said thus,
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..."
Here, we see Josephus relating several important pieces of information. First, we see that a closed canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and before his time, for he speaks of the books written after the time of Artaxerxes as being less esteemed by the Jewish forefathers. Thus, it was not just Jews in his day (in the latter part of the 1st century AD) reacting to some supposed Christian use of the Apocrypha (which didn't come until later, actually, and was far less prevalent than some would have us to believe) who rejected the apocryphal books. This body of literature was also rejected as canon and held in lower esteem by Jews in the intertestamental period long before the Christian era.
Second, we see that Josephus confirms the departure of the prophetic spirit from Israel after the time of Artaxerxes (thus, the canon ended with Nehemiah, Ezra, Malachi, and the Chronicles, all of which were written during the period of Artaxerxes Longimanus' reign, circa 450-425 BC). Third, we also see that Josephus particularly ascribes divine status to the books written before or during Artaxerxes' reign, which was pointedly denied to those written after.
we see that this ancient testimony to the Jewish canon was affirmed by Jewish religious leaders in the Christian era. In AD 90, the so-called "Council" of Jamnia was assembled in the coastal town of Jamnia. Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant historians make much of this council, basically casting it as some sort of formal Jewish religious council which was convened for the express purpose of determining the Jewish canon. Further then, many Catholic apologists take up this line of reasoning and state that the Jewish council of rabbis determined a smaller canon than had been used before this time, as a reaction to the Christians who were proving so successful at propagating their faith with the larger (i.e. Catholic) canon which included the Apocrypha. They will say that the Jewish rabbis arbitrarily decided to throw out the apocryphal books since they were being used to such great success by Christians in converting Jews and others to their religion. Of course, this argument falls short for several reasons.
If the Jews were going to get rid of books which Christians were using to great effect in proving the claims of Jesus as the Messiah, then they would also have had to have gotten rid of such books as Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, and the Psalms, for we readily see the testimony of the early church from both the Bible and from the apostolic and post-apostolic patristic writers as to their heavy reliance on books such as these to prove the claims made about Christ. In fact, the testimony of the patristic writers, which will be investigated in much greater detail below, shows very little reliance upon the apocryphal works until at least two centuries AFTER Christ, and over a century after Jamnia. The sub-apostolic authors, who wrote at and shortly after the time of Jamnia, were almost completely silent regarding the Apocrypha, and the few places where they quote or allude to these books show no reliance upon them for actual teaching of doctrine or practice.
Further, we should note
the apocryphal books do not contain the mark of propheticity upon them (they contain errors, contradictions internally, and contradictions with canonical books). The one passage in an apocryphal book routinely relied upon by supporters of the Apocrypha as providing an "important" Messianic prophecy (Wisdom 2:12-20) actually contradicts doctrine concerning the Lord Jesus taught in the Gospels.
While much is made of the presence of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, and that this presence in a translation viewed by many (though not all) in the early church as inspired necessarily means that the Apocrypha was also viewed as such, we find no clear evidence that these books were even considered to be part and parcel with the Septuagint as a united body of literature until well into the 3rd century.
Similarity between themes found in the apocryphal books and the true canon are also not an argument for the canonicity of the Apocrypha. As a religious people who enjoyed special contact with and revelation from God, it is not surprising that a knowledge of the holy, however diluted it may have eventually become because of apostasy, would be passed down through the generations of Israel (see Psalm 78:4-6). Thus, one would expect to see similar themes, obtained and understood from the true canon, presented in later works of literature which were produced. And in fact, one does see this in the apocryphal works. The books of the Apocrypha do contain much truth, but it is truth which is derived from the true canon of the Old Testament, and is in an adulterated form. Much of the supposed reliance of the New Testament upon the apocryphal books stems from this. Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be viewed as belonging to this category of "general truths". These truths, based upon the Truth of God's Word, would naturally also appear in literature which was consciously patterned after the earlier canonical literature. However, this doesn't lend inspiration to these books themselves.
peacefulpete

Similarity between themes found in the apocryphal books and the true canon are also not an argument for the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
I assure you that is not the purpose of this discussion. The point is simply that the NT authors were familiar with apocryphal traditions and utilized them.
LittleToe

I missed this thread, as I was away.
Please keep posting stuff like this, Leo, it's excellent!
ThiChi
My point being that the Apocrypha provided no direct influence upon the production of the New Testament, though it can be granted that there were indirect influences resulting from the cultural milieu in which both sets of literature were produced.
Out of 263 direct quotations of the Old Testament in the New,
88 correspond closely to the Septuagint
64 represent the Septuagint with some variation
37 have the same meaning as the Septuagint passage, but expressed with different words
16 agree with the Hebrew Masoretic over against the Septuagint
20 differ from both the Hebrew Masoretic and the Septuagint
The remaining 38 quotations presumably represent passages where both versions were in substantial agreement. Note also that this data deals with independent quotations, not counting multiple quotations of the same verse across different books.
From this, we see that at many points, the Hebrew Masoretic quotations are preferred over those of the primitive Septuagint. At other points, this primitive document seems to be preferred instead of the Masoretic. The most likely reason is given thus:
"It is agreed that the Septuagint was far from perfect, and no claim can be advanced for the divine inspiration of the translators. However, if we observe the manner in which the Apostles refer to the Old Testament Scriptures, we see a striking indication of the inspiration under which they themselves wrote. When they refer to the Septuagint, they do so under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of the original revelation. His authority is therefore higher than that of the translator.
"This higher authority is shown in three ways. Firstly, where the LXX translators were correct, the Apostles quote verbally and literally from the Septuagint, and thus reminded their readers of the Scriptures with which they were already familiar in that particular form. Secondly, where the LXX is incorrect, the Apostles amend it, and make their quotations according to the Hebrew, translating it anew into Greek, and improving upon the defective rendering. Thirdly, when it was the purpose of the Holy Spirit to point out more clearly in what sense the quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures were to be understood, the Apostles were guided to restate the revealed truth more fully or explicitly. By the hands of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit thus delivers again His own inspired message, in order to make more clear to later generations what had been formerly declared through the prophets in earlier ages. By giving again the old truth in new words, the Holy Ghost infallibly imparted teaching which lay hidden in the old, but which could only be fully understood by a later generation if given in a different form."
The fact that the passages which do exhibit the Septuagintic sense vary with respect to their verbal constructions (some very close, others with words changed but the meaning kept, etc.) would seem to argue as well for a more primitive Greek Old Testament which contained differences from the present Septuagint but which was yet fairly close to that document, as will be argued below.
We should understand that the appeal by the New Testament writers to Old Testament quotations from a Greek Old Testament version doesn't necessarily mean that the Masoretic Hebrew itself is less useful or corrupted. When the Apostles draw upon the Greek Old Testament as a source of their quotation, this doesn't imply that the Hebrew Masoretic was incorrect at that point. The Greek and the Masoretic may be both substantially the same in meaning, but differ in wording or construction due to the vagarities of translation between languages.
GrandmaJones

btt
Joey Jo-Jo

Leolaia: Have you read the dead see scrolls?, according to 4Q339
4Q339: List of False Prophets

The false prophets who arose in [Israel]
Balaam [son of] Beor (numbers)
[the] Old Man from Bethel (1 kings)
[Zede]kiah son of Cha[na]anah (1 kings)
[Aha]b son of K[ol]iah (jer)
[Zede]kiah son of Ma[a]seiah
[Shemaiah the Ne]hlemite (jer)
[Hananiah son of Az]ur
[a prophet from Gib]eon

Apocryphal Jewish Tradition in the New Testament

Share this