What do you think?
Rate this book
Apocrypha: Volume 15
While the canonical status of the Greek and Latin Old Testament texts commented on within this volume has been understood differently within Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, their longstanding use within the Christian churches makes them worthy of careful study and reflection. As noted in the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Jerome says that the church reads the Apocrypha "for example of life and instruction of manners." As a result their influence extends well beyond ecclesiastical use to literature, hymnody, music, and art. Their questioned authority has nevertheless affected the choice of books included here, not by a priori judgment but by the paucity of comment from which to choose. None of the early fathers dedicated commentaries to these texts as a whole. Despite the length of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the model they presented for Christian martyrdom, they were rarely cited or commented on. The Wisdom books received the most comment and are those best represented here. In particular, readers will find ample comment on Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon (the latter three all found as additions to the Hebrew and Aramaic book of Daniel). Among commentators readers will find Origen, John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyr, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine, Julius Africanus, Athanasius, Palladius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Cassiodorus, Ambrose, and others. This Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume presents a worthy feast of patristic comment on these ancient and important texts, some of which is presented here in English translation for the first time.
548 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 19, 2014
3 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 16, 2017
I’m not sure what I expected, but I expected more. This volume started off well: In the General Introduction by Thomas B. Oden, it is mentioned that the Fathers of the Church considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture. It is in the specific introduction to this volume that the book reveals its flaws.
In the “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” we find a discussion of the creation of the Septuagint, along with a parenthetical section discussing the validity of the “Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates” which is the source of the LXX legend. However, the sole mention of the Council of Jamnia is in the following quote: “For Palestinian Judaism, the [canonical] discussion is traditionally considered to have closed toward the end of the first century A.D. with the synod of Jamnia, which accepted only those books for which a Hebrew or Aramaic original was available.” A single sentence, containing so much that is in error.
First, there was no Hebrew Bible at that time, or for some time after. (This is only mentioned in a brief endnote.) There was no canonical consensus among the Jews; in fact, there were many Judaisms. Jews were not yet “People of the Book”, as the Quran styles them. The focus of Judaism was temple, not text. It was not until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and the Jews exiled in 135 A.D., that Judaism was forced to change.
Second, Jews did not hold councils, which were a Christian innovation. They certainly would not have adopted this Christian practice this early — especially since even among Christians, the process was in its infancy.
Third, the Council of Jamnia is a flight of fancy. D. E. Aune, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature, says the idea of the Council of Jamnia setting the canon of the Hebrew Bible was created by the Jewish Historian Heinrich Graetz; he put forth his "novel thesis,” yet provided no evidence whatsoever. This novel thesis was then accepted by biblical scholars in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, especially among those who were already predisposed to dismissing the larger canon of the early church.
Fourth, the general consensus among biblical scholars is that while there was some sort of assembly in Jamnia, it had nothing to do with defining dogma or declaring the limits of the canon.
Unless you assiduously read the endnotes, you would not be aware of any of this. Important information that is central to the issue at hand should not be relegated to endnotes but should be part of the text itself.
The unstated premise to the “Introduction to the Apocrypha” is that the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books are not scripture. The author spends a good deal of time on those writers who took issue with the Apocrypha, while failing to mention there was no canonical consensus at the time they wrote, and their voice was one among many. Even a renowned scholar like Jerome ultimately submitted his will to the decision of his Bishop. Not mentioned is the fact that all ancient Christian groups accept these books as scripture, and use them in their lectionaries.
It is not enough to accept without question the Protestant consensus, nor to pay left-handed compliments to various individual books. If you begin the General Introduction by saying these books were the bible of the ancient church, you cannot then jump to the proposition that these books are not canonical. You must either make your case or take great pains to remove your Protestant bias. This, the authors and editors did not do.
In the “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” we find a discussion of the creation of the Septuagint, along with a parenthetical section discussing the validity of the “Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates” which is the source of the LXX legend. However, the sole mention of the Council of Jamnia is in the following quote: “For Palestinian Judaism, the [canonical] discussion is traditionally considered to have closed toward the end of the first century A.D. with the synod of Jamnia, which accepted only those books for which a Hebrew or Aramaic original was available.” A single sentence, containing so much that is in error.
First, there was no Hebrew Bible at that time, or for some time after. (This is only mentioned in a brief endnote.) There was no canonical consensus among the Jews; in fact, there were many Judaisms. Jews were not yet “People of the Book”, as the Quran styles them. The focus of Judaism was temple, not text. It was not until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and the Jews exiled in 135 A.D., that Judaism was forced to change.
Second, Jews did not hold councils, which were a Christian innovation. They certainly would not have adopted this Christian practice this early — especially since even among Christians, the process was in its infancy.
Third, the Council of Jamnia is a flight of fancy. D. E. Aune, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature, says the idea of the Council of Jamnia setting the canon of the Hebrew Bible was created by the Jewish Historian Heinrich Graetz; he put forth his "novel thesis,” yet provided no evidence whatsoever. This novel thesis was then accepted by biblical scholars in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, especially among those who were already predisposed to dismissing the larger canon of the early church.
Fourth, the general consensus among biblical scholars is that while there was some sort of assembly in Jamnia, it had nothing to do with defining dogma or declaring the limits of the canon.
Unless you assiduously read the endnotes, you would not be aware of any of this. Important information that is central to the issue at hand should not be relegated to endnotes but should be part of the text itself.
The unstated premise to the “Introduction to the Apocrypha” is that the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books are not scripture. The author spends a good deal of time on those writers who took issue with the Apocrypha, while failing to mention there was no canonical consensus at the time they wrote, and their voice was one among many. Even a renowned scholar like Jerome ultimately submitted his will to the decision of his Bishop. Not mentioned is the fact that all ancient Christian groups accept these books as scripture, and use them in their lectionaries.
It is not enough to accept without question the Protestant consensus, nor to pay left-handed compliments to various individual books. If you begin the General Introduction by saying these books were the bible of the ancient church, you cannot then jump to the proposition that these books are not canonical. You must either make your case or take great pains to remove your Protestant bias. This, the authors and editors did not do.
Displaying 1 of 1 review