Chapter 2 - The Apocrypha – Does It Belong In The
Bible?
All quotes are from "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" by Dr. Ron Rhodes
A Step-by-Step guide to sharing the Good News with Catholics
The (numbers in parenthesis refer to page numbers in the book)
The
Issue: Catholics
have 7 more books in their Bibles than non-Catholics. Catholics say that they
belong in the Bible, while non-Catholics say that they do not.
The
Facts: In Jesus’ day
there were several groups of Jews – Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Jews that
lived in Palestine and Jews that lived outside of Palestine – who while they
agreed on major doctrinal issues disagreed on others, like which books belonged
in the Bible. This issue was not settled in Jesus’ day. Jesus comes and
preaches the Gospel which is then partially written down and discussed by the
various New Testament authors. These books and letters were distributed to
their audience, then copied and made available for other Christian communities
to read. At the same time other authors began to write who were not apostles,
some were legitimate and others were not.
In time the apostles died leaving their authority to other worthy men.
In first quarter of the second century (135 A.D.) the Jews, zealous concerning
a new religious leader in their midst (Bar Kokhba), closed the Hebrew canon and
condemned the beliefs of the Christians. Meanwhile the true and false writings
concerning Christ continued to circulate. No counsel was held to judge the
legitimacy about certain books because from the year 65 to 313 A.D.
Christianity was illegal under Roman law.
Yet in that period many individual Christians had drawn up lists of
books that they believed were inspired by God. While there were core books that
everyone listed, there were other books from both the Old and New Testament
that were disputed. Finally at the local counsels of Rome (382), Hippo (393),
and Carthage (397), Catholic bishops (for all Christians were Catholic at this
time, except for the Arians) recognized 73 books that made up the Old and New
Testament. This was the list that everyone accepted. In 1431 a council was held
in Florence, Italy that reaffirmed that those 73 books were in fact inspired.
Years later in 1517 Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, he
removed from the Old Testament books that Jews in his day did not have in their
Bibles ( these are the 7 books of the Old Testament their are - Tobit,
Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (a.k.a Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2
Maccabees. Many do not know that he also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, and
Revelation from the New Testament as well.
In
response to his protests, the Catholic Church once again held a council, this
time in the city of Trent (1545-1563) where they re-reaffirmed that it is 73
books that belong in the Bible.
The Misconception: In 1545 the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Old
Testament to support its teachings.
1. Apocryphal
Books Do Not Claim To Be Inspired
·
He Asks – What does it say to you that
not a single apocryphal book claims to have been inspired by God?
I Respond
– It doesn’t say much considering most of the books of the Bible don’t claim to
be inspired by God.
I Would Ask
– If a book does in fact claim to be inspired by God like the Book of Mormon,
does that mean that it is inspired? – Obviously not. What happened was that the
same Holy Spirit who had inspired men in the 300’s to say officially that the
New Testament books were inspired, also lead the same men to say that those 7
books in the Old Testament were inspired as well. So if you trust them with
their decision of the New Testament books, why not trust them with their
decision of the Old Testament books as well. The opposite is true also – if
they got it wrong about the Old Testament, maybe they got it wrong about the
New Testament.
·
He Asks – If the apocryphal books are
inspired, why weren’t the writers of these books confirmed by divine miracles
like the Old and New Testament writers?
He
then sites 1 Kings 18 – which is the story of when Elijah confronted Ahab about
who the Israelites were going to serve – God or Baal. Fire then falls from
heaven and consumes the sacrifice which Elijah has made in front of many
witnesses proving that God and not Baal is the true God.
Honestly
I thought this question was confusing because it either means that a book much
contain miracles to prove that it is inspired, or the writer of the book worked
miracles.
I Respond
- If a book must contain miracles to be inspired, then books like Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Philemon are out. If a book must have been written by someone
who performed miracles then St. Luke is out because no miracles are attributed
to him. If you need miracles in those seven books, then Tobit and the Maccabbees
have those in them.
·
He Asks – If the apocryphal
books are inspired, why didn’t they contain predictive prophecy like the Old
and New Testament books?
I Respond – Many
Old and New Testament book don’t contain predictive prophecy does that negate their
inspiration?
I Would Ask – If
it did contain prophecy would that make it inspired? If they say yes then read
Wisdom 2:12 12 Let
us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against
our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with
violations of our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD. 14 To us he is the censure
of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, 15 Because
his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. 16 He
judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He
calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver
him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us
put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his
patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according
to his own words, God will take care of him."
2. New Testament
Writers Do Not Quote The Apocrypha
Introduction
– Dr. Rhodes begins
on faulty footing when he says, “Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore these
books-something that would not have been the case if they had considered them
to be inspired.”
I Respond – There are several problems with this
argument. The first is that just because a book is quoted in the New Testament
doesn’t mean that it is inspired. The second is that the pagan poet Epimenides
and the Book of Enoch are both quoted in the New Testament does that mean that
they are inspired? No. Likewise just because these 7 books are not quoted
doesn’t imply that they aren’t inspired or else Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah – because these
books that are accepted by everyone are not quoted in the New Testament as well
– would call their inspiration into question.
·
(34)He Asks - What do you think that suggests to you that the New
Testament writers often quoted from the Old Testament, but never quoted from an
apocryphal book?
I
Respond – I would
answer that I guess God didn’t want them quoted in the New Testament along with
many other books from the Old Testament. (See my response in the introduction
to this section)
·
(35)He Asks – In view of the fact that the New Testament writers
virtually ignored the Apocrypha, do you think that they viewed it as Scripture?
I Respond - I can’t say for sure – they do allude
to them many times in their writings – I would even ask if they thought that
their own writings were inspired. I don’t imagine that they did. What I do know
is that the Church that Christ gave us with His own authority recognized in the
late 300 which books, were and were not inspired and it is was those 73 (not
66) books that made up the Bible for everyone until the Martin Luther threw
them out.
3. Many Church
Fathers Denied The Apocrypha
Introduction
– Dr. Rhodes begin
by saying, “certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha.”
I Respond – not only did they disagree about the
Old Testament books, but they disagreed about the New Testament books as well.
This debate would continue until the late 300’s. The reason that this issue
wasn’t settled officially by the church until the late 300’s is because they
had been persecuted more most of that time by the Roman government. Many Church
Fathers gave lists of books that they considered inspired. Some Old Testament
books and New Testament books were called into question, but with the councils
of Rome in the 380’s, Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 (all of which accepted
those 73 books that we have today) – the question was settled.
So calling into question what the
early Church Fathers thought was inspired also kind of backfires because it was
at those same councils that the New Testament canon was recognized officially
as well.
4. Early
Christian Evidence Argues Against The Apocrypha
In this
section Dr. Rhodes gives us an example of a church father who outright denied
all of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. This doesn’t turn out to be a
true as he probably would have hoped. Dr. Rhodes quotes Eusebius who is quoting
Melito of Sardis who says this:
‘Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where
these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old
Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows:
Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus
Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of
David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book
; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing
them into six books. Such are the words of Melito.’ (Eusebius, Church History,
Book 4 Ch 26:14)
Dr. Rhodes then goes on to say, “Notice that Melito affirmed
all the Old Testament books except the Book of Esther, but did not mention a
single apocryphal book (RFS p.36).” The problem can be seen with the emboldened
and underlined word Wisdom. This refers to the Wisdom of Solomon
– one of the ‘apocryphal’ books that Melito is supposedly not mentioning. Now
the fact that Melito doesn’t mention Esther ( a book everyone today has in
their Bibles), just goes to show that in Melito’s time (170 A.D.), the debate
still continued about which books should go in the Bible.
5. The Early
Jews Of Palestine Rejected The Apocrypha
Dr. Rhodes
tries to make that case that because the Jews after Jesus’ day rejected the
apocrypha, we should reject it as well. It should be noted that these same Jews
rejected the New Testament books as well, so should we do the same?
6. There Are
Historical Errors In The Apocrypha
·
(37)He Asks – Does God make mistakes?
I
Respond - Nope
·
(37)He Asks – Do books inspired by God contain mistakes?
I
Respond - Nope
·
(37-38)He Asks – Did you know that history and archeology are true friends of
the Old and New Testament because they verify numerous customs, places, names,
and events in Bible times?
I
Respond - Yep
·
(38)He Asks – Did you know, by contrast, that the apocryphal books contain
many historical errors?
I
Respond – No they
don’t.
He suggests - pointing out some historical
difficulties in the book of Tobit
I would
follow up - Many
people say that there are historical problems with the New Testament and other
Old Testament books. While this has been the claim, God’s word throughout time
has always proven to be true, and this has been confirmed through archeology
and the discovery of other ancient texts. Like Cardinal Newman said, "Ten
thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
The ancient times were just as
complicated as things are today, and we only get to see a small fraction of
this history through the little texts that remain. Therefore while at times
things seem to contradict, it is our lack of information that might be
the problem, not the text.
Something else to consider is that we
believe that only the original works of the authors are inspired by God.
Copyists do make errors, which very well may be the case in the book of Tobit.
Finally I would say this – If God
appeared to the person and assured them that it was inspired and reliable, then
would the person still doubt because of the current history, or would they
trust God? Hopefully they would trust God. We believe that God has spoken
through the Church and revealed which books are inspired both Old and New and
we have faith that what he is given is infallible.
·
(38)He Asks – What does that tell you regarding
whether the Apocrypha is inspired by God?
I Respond
– I believe that it
is inspired
7. The Apocrypha
Contains Unbiblical Doctrines
·
(38-39)He Asks – Since we know that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and
that the Apocrypha clearly contradicts the Old and New Testaments at numerous
points, what can we conclude about the Apocrypha?
I
Respond – Catholics agree that the Old and
New Testaments are the Word of God, but no part of the Bible contradicts any
other part of the Bible. Now what is happening is that these Biblical teaching
found in these 7 books of the Old Testament are contradicting Dr. Rhodes
private interpretation on the New and Old Testament, therefore he sees a
contradiction where there really is none. Let’s examine the ones presented:
I will answer these questions below later.
8. The
Septuagint Argument Is Flawed
9. The Catacombs
Argument Is Not Convincing
10. The Church
Council Argument Is Not Convincing
11. The Qumran
Argument Is Not Convincing
12. Tests Of
Canonicity
13. Hebrews 11:35
– A Citation From The Apocrypha
