|
ahh.. tec, i think what you might be referring to with the vague hostility is that there are some negative reactions from people who are invested in the bible when apocrypha comes up. One thing that's frustrated me is the number of authors who write sensationalistic accounts of non-cannonical works, and hype it up beyond recognition. people read this, and feel that traditional religion and or biblical studies has let them down by not telling them about it. people who are really invested in the bible can get frustrated with trying to debunk some of these claims. there's a similar phenomeon around the Da Vinci code.
And i think there's a yes and a no to that enthusiasm for the alternate story. Yes, non-cannonical writings are important in our reading of scripture, and they have been left out of how the story and study of scripture gets told to most people. but in many cases there's a reason certain books were not included...they aren't as good, the theology is geared to a very specific group, etc... By and large, non-cannonical writings are not a treasure trove that changes everything or stands religion on it's head. They do help tell the story of the development of religion, since it is the losers of the great fights of the church that have their books taken out or not included in the first place. The question isn't if something is scripture. The question is "who is it scripture for?"
There are two major groupings of non-cannonical writings. the title apocrypha by the way starts out as derogatory, even if modern parlance uses it freely, i still refer to them as non-cannonical.
The first grouping is works that circulate in the community that practices Torah. I don't say Judiasm...as what we modernly refer to as the Jewish faith doesn't develop until well after the desctruction of the temple. Often written in greek for use by the many diapora Judeans (There were more abroad than in Palestine even before the Roman sack of the temple), they are somewhat sidelined when major compilations of writings are being assembled. This might include Maccabbees (tells the story of the revolt that leads to the Hannukah legend) or additions to the book of daniel. other works are in semetic languages, even hebrew, but are far off enough in character to be commonly excluded. the book of Jubilees is a good example. Mystic in tone, it did not circulate widely. Apoclyptic books are exceedingly common-books were written and ascribed to past heros giving instruction to communities facing pressure to adapt to Greek culture.
Later Augustine favors Greek translations (including of works originally in Hebrew) and the Greek version of the Tanak, the Septuagint (LXX). Jerome on the other hand thinks that the Hebrew is best (giving rise to the phrase Hebraica Veritas or the Hebrew Truth) and translates those works in to Latin from the Hebrew. Despite his hack job of a translation (his Latin Vulgate Bible is one of the worst, as far as accuracy, in history) this catches on in many circles and is picked up by the Reform. Luther and others take his lead, and exclude works not originally in Hebrew. This pretty much leaves the standard OT cannon as you know it today. Jewish and Xtn scholars will disagree on order, but not content. Xtns bascially rearanged it to make it more of a "history book" to prefigure Christ.
i need to get to class...so i'll write about new testament associated non-cannonical writings when i'm done. thanks y'all for the soapbox...
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|