Fun with Apocrypha
Feb. 3rd, 2008 08:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatIt's Superbowl Sunday, and here I am talking about the Bible. Of course, I also profaned the Lord's day by going to work and not to church, but hey. Anyway, today I'm addressing the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books that were left out of the Tanakh and Protestant Bibles, but included in either the Catholic or Orthodox Bibles (or, in some cases, both).
Tobit - I didn't know anything about this book prior to today, which is described in the annotated Bible I have as being about "the vindication of God's justice." It's also about the angel Raphael (who, from what I've heard, is cool but crude) teaching someone how to drive off the demon Asmodeus using fish innards. I find 4:12, in which Tobit tells his son Tobias to marry another Jew, to be somewhat interesting. Tobit says, "Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors of old, all took wives from among their kindred." According to Genesis, Abraham actually married his half-sister, and Isaac and Jacob their cousins. There's no identification of Noah's wife, however (and no, she wasn't Joan of Arc {g}). I wonder if there was a tradition about her identity at the time Tobit was written.
Judith - There's a famous painting by Gustav Klimt of Judith holding the head of Holofernes, which hung on the wall of one of the common rooms of my old dorm. Because both that and another picture in the room included bare nipples, some of my classmates called it the "Nipple Lounge." Perhaps it says something about college students that they took more notice of boobies than of the severed head. Anyway, I remember hearing from someone that Judith and Holofernes came from a Bible story, but I'd never heard of it, probably because it isn't in Protestant Bibles. I'm not sure why, although the historical inaccuracy might have something to do with it. A lot of Biblical books are of doubtful historicity (Genesis, anyone?), but Judith has Nebuchadnezzar ruling Assyria from Nineveh, and planning to attack a post-exile Judea. In modern terms, this would be sort of like, say, a book where Abraham Lincoln is President of the Confederacy during World War I. In light of the misogyny that permeates much of the Bible, however, it's nice to see a book starring a badass woman. Judith is sort of a more proactive version of Jael (who, for those of you who don't feel like looking it up, was the woman who killed a Canaanite general with a tent peg back in the time of the Judges).
Wisdom of Solomon - Nothing much new here. There's more personification of Wisdom as in Proverbs, more bashing of idol worship, and some reiteration of stories from the Torah. There's a little bit about the judgment of the dead, which is mentioned in Daniel, and would become more prominent in Christian belief.
Sirach - Also known as Ecclesiasticus in the Vulgate.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rockinlibrarian, is it possible that this was the book you were thinking of when you said that some Bibles don't include the similarly-named Ecclesiastes? I would imagine that Christian Scientists aren't too keen on this book either, since it says that medicine is a good thing. It's a long book, full of advice on everything from humility to proper table manners. It gives the standard instructions about providing for the poor, but also discourages parents from playing with their children, reinforces that a woman's place is in the home, and says there's nothing wrong with beating slaves. And then there's this useful advice from 31:21: "If you are overstuffed with food, get up to vomit, and you will have relief."
Baruch and The Letter of Jeremiah - Associated with the prophet Jeremiah, but probably written much later than the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, there really isn't too much worth noting in these books (which are sometimes combined into one book), aside from a brief mention of cannibalism in Baruch 2:3. When do we get another book with a story? I miss Judith.
Maccabees - Okay, these books were a little more interesting. There are actually four books of the Maccabees, but only two were included in the Vulgate. Just like how Samuel doesn't appear in 2 Samuel, 3 Maccabees does not contain any actual Maccabees. And 4 Maccabees uses the revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes as an example in a philosophical discourse about how reason triumphs over emotion, and religion is compatible with reason. The first two books, however, tell the story of Judea's successful war against the Greek occupation. Sure, the independent kingdom only lasted about a century before it was conquered yet again, and several of the Old Testament prophets seemed pretty sure that the Jews would be left alone after the end of the Babylonian exile, but it's still an impressive story. There are mentions of the Jewish rebels destroying pagan temples, though, which is rather hypocritical considering how indignant they got at the desecration of their own. Religious tolerance isn't a one-way street, you know. The name "Maccabeus" probably translates to "hammer," which means that Judas' nickname would later be shared by a rapper in baggy pants and an exterminator who became Speaker of the House.
Esdras - There are actually two books of Esdras, which are quite different, but neither of which was all that popular with the canonizers. 1 Esdras is basically just a retelling of the canonical story of Ezra ("Esdras" is the Greek form of "Ezra"), while 2 Esdras is a largely Christian work (there are references to the Messiah as the Son of God) with Ezra receiving apocalyptic visions similar to those of Daniel or John of Patmos. It includes a lot of the standard rhetoric about how everything will be mixed up in the end times--the sun will shine at night and the moon during the day, fishes will drown in the sea, hamburgers will eat people, every four will be waltz again, plasticine porters will wear looking-glass ties, etc.--but my favorite bit is in 5:8, in which Ezra learns that "menstruous women shall bring forth monsters." Behemoth and Leviathan also both make appearances, as do some Arabian dragons.
The other items that my HarperCollins Study Bible includes in the Deuterocanonical section are simply additions to canonical books, so I don't think I need to bother commenting on them. I suppose it's on to the New Testament for me now.
Tobit - I didn't know anything about this book prior to today, which is described in the annotated Bible I have as being about "the vindication of God's justice." It's also about the angel Raphael (who, from what I've heard, is cool but crude) teaching someone how to drive off the demon Asmodeus using fish innards. I find 4:12, in which Tobit tells his son Tobias to marry another Jew, to be somewhat interesting. Tobit says, "Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors of old, all took wives from among their kindred." According to Genesis, Abraham actually married his half-sister, and Isaac and Jacob their cousins. There's no identification of Noah's wife, however (and no, she wasn't Joan of Arc {g}). I wonder if there was a tradition about her identity at the time Tobit was written.
Judith - There's a famous painting by Gustav Klimt of Judith holding the head of Holofernes, which hung on the wall of one of the common rooms of my old dorm. Because both that and another picture in the room included bare nipples, some of my classmates called it the "Nipple Lounge." Perhaps it says something about college students that they took more notice of boobies than of the severed head. Anyway, I remember hearing from someone that Judith and Holofernes came from a Bible story, but I'd never heard of it, probably because it isn't in Protestant Bibles. I'm not sure why, although the historical inaccuracy might have something to do with it. A lot of Biblical books are of doubtful historicity (Genesis, anyone?), but Judith has Nebuchadnezzar ruling Assyria from Nineveh, and planning to attack a post-exile Judea. In modern terms, this would be sort of like, say, a book where Abraham Lincoln is President of the Confederacy during World War I. In light of the misogyny that permeates much of the Bible, however, it's nice to see a book starring a badass woman. Judith is sort of a more proactive version of Jael (who, for those of you who don't feel like looking it up, was the woman who killed a Canaanite general with a tent peg back in the time of the Judges).
Wisdom of Solomon - Nothing much new here. There's more personification of Wisdom as in Proverbs, more bashing of idol worship, and some reiteration of stories from the Torah. There's a little bit about the judgment of the dead, which is mentioned in Daniel, and would become more prominent in Christian belief.
Sirach - Also known as Ecclesiasticus in the Vulgate.
rockinlibrarian, is it possible that this was the book you were thinking of when you said that some Bibles don't include the similarly-named Ecclesiastes? I would imagine that Christian Scientists aren't too keen on this book either, since it says that medicine is a good thing. It's a long book, full of advice on everything from humility to proper table manners. It gives the standard instructions about providing for the poor, but also discourages parents from playing with their children, reinforces that a woman's place is in the home, and says there's nothing wrong with beating slaves. And then there's this useful advice from 31:21: "If you are overstuffed with food, get up to vomit, and you will have relief."Baruch and The Letter of Jeremiah - Associated with the prophet Jeremiah, but probably written much later than the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, there really isn't too much worth noting in these books (which are sometimes combined into one book), aside from a brief mention of cannibalism in Baruch 2:3. When do we get another book with a story? I miss Judith.
Maccabees - Okay, these books were a little more interesting. There are actually four books of the Maccabees, but only two were included in the Vulgate. Just like how Samuel doesn't appear in 2 Samuel, 3 Maccabees does not contain any actual Maccabees. And 4 Maccabees uses the revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes as an example in a philosophical discourse about how reason triumphs over emotion, and religion is compatible with reason. The first two books, however, tell the story of Judea's successful war against the Greek occupation. Sure, the independent kingdom only lasted about a century before it was conquered yet again, and several of the Old Testament prophets seemed pretty sure that the Jews would be left alone after the end of the Babylonian exile, but it's still an impressive story. There are mentions of the Jewish rebels destroying pagan temples, though, which is rather hypocritical considering how indignant they got at the desecration of their own. Religious tolerance isn't a one-way street, you know. The name "Maccabeus" probably translates to "hammer," which means that Judas' nickname would later be shared by a rapper in baggy pants and an exterminator who became Speaker of the House.
Esdras - There are actually two books of Esdras, which are quite different, but neither of which was all that popular with the canonizers. 1 Esdras is basically just a retelling of the canonical story of Ezra ("Esdras" is the Greek form of "Ezra"), while 2 Esdras is a largely Christian work (there are references to the Messiah as the Son of God) with Ezra receiving apocalyptic visions similar to those of Daniel or John of Patmos. It includes a lot of the standard rhetoric about how everything will be mixed up in the end times--the sun will shine at night and the moon during the day, fishes will drown in the sea, hamburgers will eat people, every four will be waltz again, plasticine porters will wear looking-glass ties, etc.--but my favorite bit is in 5:8, in which Ezra learns that "menstruous women shall bring forth monsters." Behemoth and Leviathan also both make appearances, as do some Arabian dragons.
The other items that my HarperCollins Study Bible includes in the Deuterocanonical section are simply additions to canonical books, so I don't think I need to bother commenting on them. I suppose it's on to the New Testament for me now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 10:43 pm (UTC)Sadly enough, when I read the first sentence of this paragraph, my immediate first reaction was "Wait, one of the Klimts in the Boob Room had a severed head in it?!" *headsmack*
Sirach - Also known as Ecclesiasticus in the Vulgate. rockinlibrarian, is it possible that this was the book you were thinking of when you said that some Bibles don't include the similarly-named Ecclesiastes?
Possibly, and maybe even probably. Though I HAVE heard of Sirach, and not of Ecclesiasticus.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:01 am (UTC)Sadly enough, when I read the first sentence of this paragraph, my immediate first reaction was "Wait, one of the Klimts in the Boob Room had a severed head in it?!"
In fairness, I think it was a little while before I noticed the severed head myself.
I think the name "Ecclesiasticus" might have only been used in Latin translations of the Bible, but I'm not totally sure.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-07 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:14 am (UTC)Well, maybe it isn't supposed to be that they're infallible in and of themselves so much as that God was working through them when they went through the selection process. It is interesting to see which books made it to some Bibles and not others. I know that the Protestants dropped the books that were in the Vulgate but not in the Tanakh, which explains why Catholic Bibles include more books than Protestant ones. And I know that Coptic Bibles include the Book of Enoch (sometimes known as 1 Enoch, since there were also two other less famous books featuring Enoch), which was rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches even though it's referenced at some point in the New Testament (in Jude, maybe?). There was actually an interesting special on rejected Biblical books on the History Channel, and the general consensus seems to be that the basis for rejection was usually the inclusion of heterodox ideas. I'd also be interested in knowing the reasons behind the ones that WERE selected. Some of what I have heard sounds rather arbitrary, like the decision that there should be four Gospels because there are four winds.
The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
Date: 2008-02-05 06:26 pm (UTC)And now that we are on the topic, why are you reading the Bible, my friend? I thought you were a member of Smug Atheists of North America or something, given your love-hate thing with Jack Chick.
Re: The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
Date: 2008-02-05 07:36 pm (UTC)Yeah, and Lincoln wasn't a Confederate. That was kind of my point. {g} From what I understand, Nebuchadnezzar actually destroyed Nineveh, the last Assyrian capital.
And now that we are on the topic, why are you reading the Bible, my friend? I thought you were a member of Smug Atheists of North America or something, given your love-hate thing with Jack Chick.
So I can't read it if I don't consider it to be the gospel truth (pun intended)? It's still a significant part of our culture, and contains a lot of interesting stuff. Besides, how can I properly make fun of Chick if I don't know the context that he's constantly taking verses out of? :P
For that matter, I would imagine that a lot of Christians aren't too fond of Chick either, considering his bashing of other denominations (particularly Catholicism) and his simple-minded views on salvation by faith and other doctrines.
Re: The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
Date: 2008-02-05 10:48 pm (UTC)That sounds familiar; was that where Ashurbanipal's library was? (I know, I know, either there, Erbil or the other big city? Ashur?) My brain is like swiss cheese these days. Anyway, somehow I thought the Assyrian library was ransacked by the Babylonians, but I'm not sure if I am getting this confused.
It's still a significant part of our culture, and contains a lot of interesting stuff.
I'm impressed. The usual atheist modus operandi is get get just enough info to make better fun of religion. :) Of course, knowing the bible well would make one a better Chick scholar and aficiondo.
Re: The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
Date: 2008-02-06 05:05 am (UTC)I've known (or at least known of) atheists who were quite familiar with the Bible, as well as hardcore Christians who were totally sure everything in it was true even though they hadn't read it. It does bother me a little when I see people claim that the Bible isn't worth reading because "it's fiction," both because: 1) I would imagine that most historical documents from that same general time period also include similar supernatural explanations, exaggerations, and legends to fill in the gaps before recorded history; and 2) I LIKE reading fiction. I'm really quite interested in religion and mythology in general, though. I hope to read some other important religious texts when I'm finished with the Bible.
The 10,000 Things Rise and Fall
Date: 2008-02-06 01:58 pm (UTC)Re: The 10,000 Things Rise and Fall
Date: 2008-02-06 05:50 pm (UTC)