Difference between revisions of "Category:OT Apocrypha (subject)"

From 4 Enoch: : The Online Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, and Christian and Islamic Origins
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
==Overview ==
==Overview ==


The corpus of the OT Apocrypha or Deuterocanici (Tobit, Judith, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, 1-2 Maccabees, Baruch, plus the additions to Daniel and Esther) owes its existence to the polemics of the Reformation era and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent in 1546.
The corpus of the OT Apocrypha or Deuterocanici owes its existence to the polemics of the Reformation era and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent in 1546.


The Protestant reformers acknowledged only the books also found in the Rabbinic Canon or [[Hebrew Bible]] as inspired scripture in the Old Testament. The Council of Trent reacted by affirming the larger canon of the traditional Roman Catholic Church, based on the Latin [[Vulgate]]: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”  
The Protestant reformers acknowledged only the books also found in the Rabbinic Canon or [[Hebrew Bible]] as inspired scripture in the Old Testament. The Council of Trent reacted by affirming the larger canon of the traditional Roman Catholic Church, based on the Latin [[Vulgate]]: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”  


Both groups could claim the authority of [[Jerome]] who in 390-405 had translated into Latin the 44 books listed by the the Councils of Hippo (339 CE) and Carthage (397 CE). Following the principle of [[Hebraica veritas]] he shared with Athanasius, Jerome in his prefaces made a distinction between the texts also present in the [[Hebrew Bible]] and the additional books which he labeled "apocryphal". The Protestant interpreted strictly the principle of ''Hebraica veritas'' enunciated by Jerome, while the Tridentine Fathers relied on a long if not entirely consistent tradition of interpreters, including Augustine, which had came to consider "canonical" also Jerome's "apocryphal" books. The Tridentine canon was identical to the list issued by the Council of Hippo (339 CE), except that the Council Fathers appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 1 and 2 Esdras, which they identified as the proto-canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah with the exclusion of 2 Esdras (=4 Ezra).
Both groups could claim the authority of [[Jerome]] who in 390-405 had translated into Latin all the OT books listed by the the Councils of Hippo (339 CE) and Carthage (397 CE). Following the principle of [[Hebraica veritas]], however, Jerome had expressed his personal uneasiness in considering canonical those texts which he labeled "apocryphal" since they were not included in the Rabbinic Canon or [[Hebrew Bible]]. As he wrote in the ''Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings'', "This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a 'helmeted' introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style."
 
The Protestant interpreted strictly the principle of ''Hebraica veritas'' enunciated by Jerome, while the Tridentine Fathers relied on a long if not entirely consistent tradition of interpreters, including Augustine, which considered "canonical" also Jerome's "apocryphal" books. The Tridentine canon was thus identical to the list issued by the Council of Hippo (339 CE), except that the Council Fathers appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 1 and 2 Esdras, which they identified as the proto-canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah with the exclusion of 2 Esdras (=4 Ezra).


This different approach resulted in a different treatment of the material  within the Protestant and the Catholic tradition.
This different approach resulted in a different treatment of the material  within the Protestant and the Catholic tradition.
Line 23: Line 25:
On the other hand, the major Roman Catholic commentary of the 16th century, the [[Biblioteca Magna]] by [[Sisto of Siena|Sixtus of Siena]] included these texts (with the exception of [[4 Ezra]]) in the Old Testament, only by giving them the label of ''deuterocanonici'' in recognition of the fact that their canonicity was disputed.
On the other hand, the major Roman Catholic commentary of the 16th century, the [[Biblioteca Magna]] by [[Sisto of Siena|Sixtus of Siena]] included these texts (with the exception of [[4 Ezra]]) in the Old Testament, only by giving them the label of ''deuterocanonici'' in recognition of the fact that their canonicity was disputed.


While the Protestant tradition downplayed the religious importance of the OT Apocrypha, the Catholic tradition saw in them the canonical foundation of some distinctive Catholic doctrines such as the legitimacy of Church's property (see [[Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple]]) or the practice of intercession for the dead (see [[Judas' Prayer for the Dead]]).  
While the Protestant tradition downplayed the religious authority of the OT Apocrypha, the Catholic tradition saw in them the canonical foundation of some distinctive Catholic doctrines such as the legitimacy of Church's property (see [[Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple]]) or the practice of intercession for the dead (see [[Judas' Prayer for the Dead]]).  


This distinction in the treatment of the material within the Protestant and Catholic traditions has shaped the foundations of modern research; see [[OT Apocrypha Studies]].  
This distinction in the treatment of the material within the Protestant and Catholic traditions has shaped the foundations of modern research; see [[OT Apocrypha Studies]].  
Line 31: Line 33:
==== The Canonical Status OT Apocryphal Texts before the 16th century ====
==== The Canonical Status OT Apocryphal Texts before the 16th century ====


Before the 16th century the OT Apocrypha or Deutocanonici did not exist as a distinctive corpus, but were part of a "gray area" made of a larger amount of books that were more or less authoritative, or authoritative for some Second Temple Jews but not for others, and then for some Christians but not for others. Like many other texts now in the [[OT Pseudepigrapha]], the texts now in the [[OT Apocrypha]] were at the fringes of ancient Jewish and Christian canons, sometimes being considered authoritative, sometimes rejected. As they did not exist as a distinctive group any discussion must be
Before the 16th century and even more so before Jerome's [[Vulgate]], the OT Apocrypha or Deutocanonici did not exist as a distinctive corpus, but were part of a "gray area" made of a larger amount of books that were more or less authoritative, or authoritative for some Christians but not for others, and already in the Second Temple period were disputed among different Jewish groups. As they did not exist as a distinctive group any discussion must be


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 14:11, 16 May 2013


The Old Testament Apocrypha, or Deutocanonici is a Christian collection generated in the 16th century to denote a certain group of Second Temple Texts not included in the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant Canon but deemed "canonical" by the Roman Catholic Church since they were preserved in the Vulgate. Their canonicity is disputed among Christians.


Overview

The corpus of the OT Apocrypha or Deuterocanici owes its existence to the polemics of the Reformation era and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent in 1546.

The Protestant reformers acknowledged only the books also found in the Rabbinic Canon or Hebrew Bible as inspired scripture in the Old Testament. The Council of Trent reacted by affirming the larger canon of the traditional Roman Catholic Church, based on the Latin Vulgate: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”

Both groups could claim the authority of Jerome who in 390-405 had translated into Latin all the OT books listed by the the Councils of Hippo (339 CE) and Carthage (397 CE). Following the principle of Hebraica veritas, however, Jerome had expressed his personal uneasiness in considering canonical those texts which he labeled "apocryphal" since they were not included in the Rabbinic Canon or Hebrew Bible. As he wrote in the Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, "This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a 'helmeted' introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style."

The Protestant interpreted strictly the principle of Hebraica veritas enunciated by Jerome, while the Tridentine Fathers relied on a long if not entirely consistent tradition of interpreters, including Augustine, which considered "canonical" also Jerome's "apocryphal" books. The Tridentine canon was thus identical to the list issued by the Council of Hippo (339 CE), except that the Council Fathers appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 1 and 2 Esdras, which they identified as the proto-canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah with the exclusion of 2 Esdras (=4 Ezra).

This different approach resulted in a different treatment of the material within the Protestant and the Catholic tradition.

The first Protestant collection of OT Apocrypha by Taverner in 1549 published as a separated corpus texts originally printed as part of the Old Testament (from the 1939 Taverner's Bible) and included the apocalyptic 4 Ezra

On the other hand, the major Roman Catholic commentary of the 16th century, the Biblioteca Magna by Sixtus of Siena included these texts (with the exception of 4 Ezra) in the Old Testament, only by giving them the label of deuterocanonici in recognition of the fact that their canonicity was disputed.

While the Protestant tradition downplayed the religious authority of the OT Apocrypha, the Catholic tradition saw in them the canonical foundation of some distinctive Catholic doctrines such as the legitimacy of Church's property (see Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple) or the practice of intercession for the dead (see Judas' Prayer for the Dead).

This distinction in the treatment of the material within the Protestant and Catholic traditions has shaped the foundations of modern research; see OT Apocrypha Studies.

One of the first major consequences of the birth of the corpus of the OT Apocrypha / Deuterocanonici was the gradual emergence (since the beginning of the 18th century) of the companion corpus of the OT Pseudepigrapha (which Catholics called OT Apocrypha) to collect all the many other ancient books that before the 16th century had shared with the OT Apocryphal texts the same destiny of being at the fringes of the ancient Jewish and Christian canons.

The Canonical Status OT Apocryphal Texts before the 16th century

Before the 16th century and even more so before Jerome's Vulgate, the OT Apocrypha or Deutocanonici did not exist as a distinctive corpus, but were part of a "gray area" made of a larger amount of books that were more or less authoritative, or authoritative for some Christians but not for others, and already in the Second Temple period were disputed among different Jewish groups. As they did not exist as a distinctive group any discussion must be

References

External links

Media in category "OT Apocrypha (subject)"

The following 4 files are in this category, out of 4 total.

Retrieved from "https://4enoch.org/wiki5/index.php?title=Category:OT_Apocrypha_(subject)&oldid=127166"