Canon and apocryphal works

Christian Alexander
Christian Alexander Member Posts: 3,008 ✭✭✭
edited November 2024 in English Forum

Are the modern apocryphal works that are not included in the canon as well documented historically as the books of the Bible that we have today? For instance, do experts believe that the four canonical gospels contain more manuscript discoveries and other findings than the apocryphal gospels? I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have developed a keen interest in the background of the New Testament and the selection process of some books over others. Nobody was especially thinking about creating a "canon" when it came to the books that are currently included in the biblical text or the Ethiopian collection. Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, reminds readers that Hebrew does not have a word for "canon," even though it does have a definite list of books that are considered scripture or holy writings. The list of books in the Hebrew Bible only got formalized in the early centuries CE. How can this be true? What are some good sources on this topic? 

Comments

  • David Wanat
    David Wanat Member Posts: 1,834 ✭✭✭

    I think the Jews refer to the list of books they use as the Masoretic Text. I recall they more or less officially adopted that in the 9th century AD. I believe that only recognizes the books existing in Hebrew. There's also the Alexandrian canon, which includes the Deuterocanonical books.

    There are some different terms to be aware of. What Catholics call Deuterocanonical; I understand Protestants call Apocrypha. What Catholics call Apocrypha; I think Protestants call Pseudepigrapha. So, depending on who else answers, you may get different names for the same things.

    WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
    Verbum Max

  • Rick Brannan
    Rick Brannan MVP Posts: 258

    Hi Christian.

    I believe you're asking about what is known as the "New Testament Apocrypha" or (better) "Christian Apocrypha"?

    For individual works, you should check the "NASSCAL Handbook of Christian Apocryphal Literature", available in Logos (which should be integrated with Factbook, so you should (as I recall) be able to look up Christian Apocrypha stuff pretty easily via Factbook. The "Handbook" is also online at https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/ with the title: "e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha". This will give you an idea of basics of the work and its textual history, so far as can be known.

    As far as a "number of manuscript discoveries" metric, that also has to be filtered by date of manuscript discovery. Note that the Shepherd of Hermas (a portion of which is included in Codex Sinaiticus) is a work that has more early fragments attesting it than some NT books for the same time period. 

     - Rick

    Rick Brannan | Bluesky: rickbrannan.com

  • Rosie Perera
    Rosie Perera Member Posts: 26,194 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Christian Alexander said:

    modern apocryphal works

    What is your definition of modern apocryphal works? What is your cutoff date for what makes them "modern"?

    I'm sure you are aware that many apocryphal works are just as ancient as the books that are included in the canon.

    I can't do your research for you. I would recommend reading any books you have in your library on canon formation. These are the ones I own, but there are plenty of others on the Logos website so if you filter on "canon" in your Library you might find others.

    Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK, 1985.

    Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.

    Comfort, Philip Wesley, ed. The Origin of the Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2004.

    Ellwanger, Bill. The Origin of the Bible. Levittown, PA: AVM Presentations, 1997.

    Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible. Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012.

    Greenlee, J. Harold. The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.McDonald, Lee Martin. The Origin of the Bible: A Guide for the Perplexed. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

    Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.

    Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

    Reeves, Ryan Matthew, and Charles E. Hill. Know How We Got Our Bible. Edited by Justin S. Holcomb. Know Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018.

    Smith, Charles Merrill, and James W. Bennett. How the Bible Was Built. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

    Theissen, Gerd. The New Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

    Warfield, Benjamin B. The Canon of the New Testament: How and When Formed. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1892.

    Westcott, Brooke Foss. A General View of the History of the English Bible. London: Macmillan and Co., 1905.

    Also, I thought ChatGPT had surprisingly good answers to these sorts of questions, but I caution you that you need to do your own research. I don't know this area well enough to check up on the accuracy of ChatGPT, and these LLMs are known to be unreliable. They are just to jumpstart your research, but don't take anything they say as true without looking it up in scholarly sources.

    RP

    Are most of the apocryphal works just as ancient as the books that are included in the biblical canon?

    ChatGPT

    Many of the apocryphal works are indeed just as ancient as the books that are included in the biblical canon. The term "apocrypha" refers to a collection of religious writings that are not considered canonical by certain religious traditions. For Christianity, this primarily involves texts related to the Old and New Testaments that are not included in the standard canon of Scripture.

    The apocryphal books related to the Old Testament, often found in the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), include works such as Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah. These texts are generally dated from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century BCE, making them contemporaneous with many of the later books of the Hebrew Bible.

    The New Testament apocrypha, which includes a wide range of gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses, were written primarily in the first few centuries CE. This means they are roughly contemporaneous with the canonical New Testament texts, which were written in the 1st century CE. However, the New Testament apocryphal works were not included in the canon for various reasons, including questions about their apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance and use among early Christian communities.

    Thus, while many apocryphal works are indeed as ancient as the canonical books, their inclusion in the canon was determined by a variety of factors, including their theological content, authorship, and the extent to which they were used in liturgy and taught by the early Church Fathers. The process of canonization varied between different branches of Christianity, which is why the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include some of the Old Testament apocrypha that the Protestant Bible does not.

    RP

    Is there such a thing as "modern apocryphal works"?

    ChatGPT

    The term "apocryphal" traditionally refers to texts that are not included in the canonical scriptures of a religion, particularly in the context of Judaism and Christianity. However, the concept of "modern apocryphal works" can be understood in a few different ways, depending on the context:

    1. New Religious Movements: In modern times, various new religious movements might produce texts that they consider sacred or spiritually significant, which could be seen as "apocryphal" by mainstream religions. These texts could claim to offer new revelations, teachings, or insights and might be revered within these specific communities but not recognized by traditional or established religious institutions.
    2. Fictional Works: There is also a genre of literature that explores biblical themes, characters, or events in a fictional or speculative manner. Such works might reimagine biblical stories or propose additional narratives that fit within the biblical world but are not considered religious texts. While not "apocryphal" in the traditional sense, they can offer alternative perspectives or insights into biblical stories and themes.
    3. Scholarly or Pseudepigraphal Works: Some modern texts might be written in the style of ancient apocryphal works, either for scholarly exploration or as a form of creative expression. These would not be considered sacred texts but rather academic or artistic endeavors that engage with the themes, styles, or questions of ancient apocryphal literature.
    4. Supplemental Religious Texts: Certain contemporary religious groups might produce texts that they regard as supplements to the traditional canon, offering further insights or revelations. While not recognized beyond these specific groups, these texts could be considered "modern apocrypha" within those communities.

    The key difference between traditional apocryphal works and what might be termed "modern apocryphal works" lies in their acceptance and role within a religious tradition. Ancient apocryphal texts often have historical significance and have been the subject of religious, literary, and scholarly attention for centuries. In contrast, modern texts that might be labeled as "apocryphal" do not have the same level of historical depth or widespread religious significance, though they may hold particular importance for specific groups or individuals.

    RP

    Are the ancient apocryphal texts as well attested in manuscript evidence as the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments?

    ChatGPT

    The manuscript evidence for ancient apocryphal texts varies widely and, in general, is not as extensive or well-attested as the manuscript evidence for the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Several factors contribute to this difference in manuscript attestation:

    1. Popularity and Usage: Canonical books were more widely used in liturgical settings and copied more frequently by scribes, leading to a greater number of surviving manuscripts. Apocryphal texts, being outside the canon, were not as widely copied or disseminated, which means fewer manuscripts have survived to the present day.
    2. Preservation and Transmission: The process of transmitting texts over centuries inherently involves loss and destruction. Canonical texts were given priority in preservation efforts by Jewish and Christian communities, which viewed them as sacred scripture. Apocryphal texts, not being considered canonical by all branches of Judaism or Christianity, were less likely to be preserved with the same care.
    3. Geographical Spread: Canonical texts of the Bible were spread widely across the Christian world and beyond, leading to a greater distribution of manuscripts in various regions and languages. Apocryphal texts often had a more limited geographical distribution, which affects the number and spread of surviving manuscripts.
    4. Material and Quality of Manuscripts: Canonical texts were often copied onto more durable materials and with greater care, as they were considered sacred. This meticulous approach helped ensure their survival. Apocryphal works, not always held in the same esteem, might not have benefited from this level of preservation effort.
    5. Discovery of Manuscripts: While significant discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library have improved our understanding and access to ancient apocryphal texts, such finds are exceptional. These discoveries have provided valuable manuscripts of apocryphal works, but the overall corpus of manuscripts for these texts remains smaller than for the canonical scriptures.

    Despite these challenges, some apocryphal texts are relatively well-attested in ancient manuscripts, though often not to the same extent as the canonical books. The degree of attestation can vary significantly among the apocryphal texts, with some being known from multiple manuscripts and others surviving in only a single or fragmentary form. The study of these texts, therefore, often relies on a more limited base of manuscript evidence compared to the canonical scriptures.

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 55,474

    Christian Alexander said:

    Are the modern apocryphal works

    Adding to Rick's excellent answer, I would add:

    1. To me, modern apocryphal works refers to the apocryphal literature prominent primarily in Poland, Ireland, and Armenia well into Christian times.
    2. The "history of the canon" is partially an academic simplification that was not necessarily reflected on the ground. For example, while Christians agreed on the use of the Septuagint canon, the contents of the Septuagint were never standardized so that the Old Testament canon was never uniform. Or the Letter to the Laodiceans was recognized as apocryphal but continued to be in German Bible until just before the printing press allowed mass printing standardization. Or the Syriac Church "accepted Revelation and some Catholic epistles" but did not include them in their Bibles until the 1900's.  Note that Quakers consider the canon as still open - they considered making the Letter to the Laodiceans canonical.
    3. The real "closing of the canon" is the result of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, and the printing press. The "history of the canon" books as a whole frequently ignore two things: (1) whether the list of books is describing what Judaism used or Christian used and (2) the range of the councils that made pronouncements on the subject - most were simply regional.
    4. Some books that introduce one to the actual practice of the church rather than the academic simplification:
  • Recognize that the context of Scripture includes literary milieu and cultural/folk knowledge.  And recognize canon by actual use not some contemporary author's simplification of a very, very complex history.

    • To those trying to find fault, I consider the above to be historical/academic not theological statements.

    Vote for resources:

Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

Categories