In the ever urgent work of winning souls for Christ, the Christian will occasionally confront members of the Roman Catholic Church who note, with some degree of alarm, that their versions of the Bible contain more books than the standard translations used by non-Catholics. More often than not, the average Christian is at a complete loss to explain why there are 46 books in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, yet only 39 books in the Old Testament of, for example, the King James Version. The qualified teacher needs to be able to give a reasonable explanation to his Catholic friends for the absence of those seven books in the versions we use.
The Disputed Books
The title "Apocrypha" has to do with a collection of 14 books, generally produced between the 2nd century B.C. and the 1st century A.D., which were not a part of the original Old Testament canon. The names of these books are I Esdras, II Esdras, The Rest of Esther, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I Maccabees and II Maccabees. Only the last seven of these are found in Roman Catholic editions of the Bible.
The word "Apocrypha" is a transliterated form of the term apokruphos meaning, "hidden." A plural form of the word is used in Colossians 2:3 where Paul declares that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are "hidden" in Christ. The adjective "apocryphal" has come to be applied to those books which do not bear the marks of divine inspiration. There are numerous reasons why the Apocrypha is to be rejected as part of the Bible.
General Principles
(1) There is abundant evidence that none of these books was ever received into the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament. Though they appear in the Septuagint, "They do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX, but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate..." (G.T. Manley, The New Bible Handbook, p. 39.)
(2) The apocryphal books are not in those most ancient works which allude to the Old Testament Scriptures. (a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C.- 50 A.D.) wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never quoted the Apocrypha, nor even mentioned them. (b) Josephus (37-95 A.D.) rejected them. He wrote: "We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty two containing the record of all time, which have justly believed to be divine" (Against Apion I:8). By combining several Old Testament narratives into a "book" the 39 of our current editions become the 22 mentioned by Josephus. (c) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis around 170 A.D.; none of the apocryphal books is included. (d) In the early 3rd century A.D. neither Origin nor his contemporary Tertullian recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. (e) Though some of the apocryphal books were being used in church services by the 5th century, they were read only by those who held inferior offices in the church (Horne's Introduction, I, p. 436.). Not even Jerome, whose translation served as the basis of the Vulgate, accorded them status comparable to the Bible.
(3) The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concluded his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel, "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Malachi 4:4-5). This pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Matthew 11:14; Luke 1:17). The implication of Malachi's prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John! This excludes the apocryphal writings. Josephus confirms this when he declares: "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..." (Against Apion I:8.).
(4) Jesus Christ and His inspired New Testament penmen quoted from or alluded to the writings and events of the Old Testament profusely. In fact, some one thousand quotations or allusions from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books are found in the New Testament record. And yet, significantly not once are these apocryphal books quoted or even referred to by the Lord or any New Testament writer. Schurer argues that this is really remarkable since most of the New Testament writers habitually quoted from the Septuagint which contained the Apocrypha (Emil Schurer, Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, I, p.99.).
(5) Finally, it must be noted that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament make no direct claims of being inspired of God. In fact, some of them actually acknowledge non-inspiration. In the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: "Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases."
Evidence Negating Inspiration
The Apocrypha contains a great variety of historical, geographical, chronological and moral errors. A critical study of its contents clearly reveals that it could not be the product of the Spirit of God. The following examples will establish the point.
(1) Rather than the creation resulting from nothing by the word of the Almighty (Genesis 1:1ff; Psalms 33:6-9; Hebrews 11:3), the Apocrypha has God creating the world out of, "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
(2) According to the prophet Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month of the nineteenth year of his reign (Jeremiah 52:12-13). Subsequent to this, both the prophet and his scribe Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:6-7). According to the Apocrypha however, at this very time Baruch was in Babylon (Baruch 1:2).
(3) There are two contradictory accounts of the death of the Jews' enemy Antiochus Epiphanes. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were, "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the Treachery of Nanaea's priests (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was, "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19:29).
(4) The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. "Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled" (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). The foregoing was a common belief among heathen peoples, but is certainly contrary to the Biblical view that the soul of man is formed within him at conception (Psalms 139:13-16; Zechariah 12:1).
(5) It is taught in these works that prayers may be made for the dead. "Wherefore He made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sin" (II Maccabees 12:45). In attempting to justify the Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead, Bertrand Conway quotes the above authoritatively, adding, "It is true that Protestants consider the books of Machabees apocryphal, but they rest upon the same authority as Isaiah or St. John; the divine infallible witness of the Catholic Church" (The Question Box, p. 394). Fortunately though, we are not dependent upon the witness of the Catholic Church for the integrity of the books of Isaiah and John!
(6) The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. "It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin" (Tobit 3:9). Herein lies the Roman doctrine of so much pray for so much pay!
(7) The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples. (a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword choosing, "rather to die nobly" than fall into the hands of the enemy. He was not mortally wounded however, and so threw himself down from a wall and "manfully" died among the crowds (14:41-43). (b) It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17). (c) The murder of the men of Shechem (Genesis 34), an act of violence condemned in the Bible (Genesis 49:6-7) is commended and said to be of God in Judith 9:2-9.
These along with various other considerations, make it impossible for the Apocrypha to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.
(3) There are two contradictory accounts of the death of the Jews' enemy Antiochus Epiphanes. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were, "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the Treachery of Nanaea's priests (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was, "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19:29).
(4) The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. "Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled" (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). The foregoing was a common belief among heathen peoples, but is certainly contrary to the Biblical view that the soul of man is formed within him at conception (Psalms 139:13-16; Zechariah 12:1).
(5) It is taught in these works that prayers may be made for the dead. "Wherefore He made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sin" (II Maccabees 12:45). In attempting to justify the Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead, Bertrand Conway quotes the above authoritatively, adding, "It is true that Protestants consider the books of Machabees apocryphal, but they rest upon the same authority as Isaiah or St. John; the divine infallible witness of the Catholic Church" (The Question Box, p. 394). Fortunately though, we are not dependent upon the witness of the Catholic Church for the integrity of the books of Isaiah and John!
(6) The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. "It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin" (Tobit 3:9). Herein lies the Roman doctrine of so much pray for so much pay!
(7) The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples. (a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword choosing, "rather to die nobly" than fall into the hands of the enemy. He was not mortally wounded however, and so threw himself down from a wall and "manfully" died among the crowds (14:41-43). (b) It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17). (c) The murder of the men of Shechem (Genesis 34), an act of violence condemned in the Bible (Genesis 49:6-7) is commended and said to be of God in Judith 9:2-9.
These along with various other considerations, make it impossible for the Apocrypha to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment