NOTE: The following two articles formed the basis of my sermon - Why we Reject the Apocrypha.
Why We Reject the Apocrypha
Myron J. Houghton, Ph.D., Th.D.
The subject of the Apocrypha can be difficult and detailed, but this article should simplify matters. If you want to explore this subject in greater detail, you should read a chapter entitled, “The Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” in the book A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix, published by Moody Press. Unless otherwise noted, the facts and arguments used in this article are taken from this source.
What Books
Belong in the Old Testament?
The word canon means “ruler” or “standard” by which something is judged. In this
context it refers to the books that belong in the Bible. Notice that Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant versions of the Bible have the exact
same books in the New Testament. There is complete agreement on this. The
disagreement comes over how many books there are in the Old Testament.
Protestant versions of the Bible contain 39 Old Testament books, while Roman
Catholic versions contain 7 more books plus some additions to the books of
Daniel and Esther. Eastern Orthodoxy accepts all of these plus 3 extra books! If
you want to look at these books, find a copy of the New Revised Standard Version
of the Bible that contains the Apocrypha, and the table of contents will
separate the books according to those that are accepted by the Protestant, Roman
Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox religions. The word apocrypha means “hidden.”
Sometimes these books are called “deuterocanonical,” which means “belonging to a
second canon.”
How Did
the Apocryphal Books Become Part of Some Bibles?
Actually no one knows for sure how the apocryphal books came to be part of some
copies of the Old Testament. Many, however, think that the extra books were
added when the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew) was translated into
Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint and
was produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 B.C. This theory
is based on the fact that the earliest copy of the Septuagint available today
contains these extra books, while none of the Hebrew Scriptures contain them.
These books, along with the rest of the Bible, were translated by Jerome into
Latin around A.D. 400, but Jerome himself did not think they belonged in the Old
Testament.
Why Don’t
We Accept the Apocryphal Books?
(1) Even though the Septuagint existed in New Testament times and was available
to the New Testament writers (the Book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint),
there are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament nor does
the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture. (2) No
general church council in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed
apocryphal books. While some early Christians thought highly of these books,
others, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome opposed them.
(3) While Augustine accepted the Apocrypha, his list is not exactly the same as
that found in Catholic Bibles [for example, he omitted Baruch, which is in the
Catholic Bible, and he included 1 Esdras, which is not in the Catholic Bible].
Furthermore, Augustine seems to have changed his mind from accepting the
Septuagint as authoritative to later recognizing that only the Hebrew Scriptures
were inspired. (4) Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize
the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D.
1546—�Catholicism’s response to the Reformation. (5) The Apocrypha appeared in
Protestant Bibles even before the Council of Trent and on into the nineteenth
century but were placed in a section separate from the Old and New Testaments.
(6) Some teachings found in the Apocrypha appear to be unbiblical and even
heretical, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45–46) and salvation by
works (Tobit 12:9). The New Testament teaches that after death comes the
judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and that salvation is by grace and not by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9); (7) Some stories in the Apocrypha seem fanciful or even
unethical (for example, Judith asks God to help her in a falsehood, Judith
9:10-13).
What
Difference Does It Make?
I do not accept the Apocrypha as part of the inspired Word of God. The first
five reasons given in the previous paragraph provide good historical reasons for
rejecting the Apocrypha as part of Holy Scripture: these books were not quoted
directly by New Testament writers, and no general church council endorsed them
until A.D. 1546. Nevertheless, I do not think one is required to see false
doctrine in these books. It is really a matter of how one interprets these
passages. For example, does 2 Maccabees 12:45–46 teach prayer for the dead?
Certainly not as a regular habit. Judas Maccabeus and his Jewish soldiers
discovered that some of their comrades had died in battle because they had taken
from their slain enemies what was forbidden to them. They had an animal
sacrifice offered on behalf of their dead fellow-soldiers and prayed that God
would not hold this sin against them. They did this because of their belief in a
future resurrection. It is their belief in the resurrection that is commended in
this passage. It is possible to interpret this passage in a manner similar to
the way we interpret Job 19:25, where Job looks forward to a future vindication
in the resurrection.
Conclusion
Don’t allow someone to whom you are witnessing to make the Apocrypha a reason
for not accepting the gospel from your Bible. If you are using the New
Testament, you have the exact same books found in every Bible version, whether
Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic. The Apocrypha does not teach that we can pray
people out of purgatory, nor does it have to be interpreted to teach salvation
by works or to promote lying. There are good reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha
as part of Holy Scripture, but those reasons are historical and not doctrinal.
Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible
by
Ryan Turner
10/13/2009
Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha
by
Jesus or the
apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the
Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as
it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New
Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude
14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts
17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by
Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament
numerous times (Mt.
5;
Lk. 24:27;
Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written,"
or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by
God.
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the
entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen.
4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2
Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I
tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk.
11:51; cf.
Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2
4. While the Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of several books of the Apocrypha, they contain far more copies of pseudepigraphal books like 1 Enoch that even the Roman Catholic church admits are clearly not inspired. What is important to note here, however, is that owning copies of a book does not imply belief in that book's inspiration. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a variety of community rules, historical documents, festival calendars, and other uninspired documents that the community found useful. The scrolls do not contain commentaries on the Apocrypha as they do for the Jewish Old Testament books, and they do not cite the Apocrypha authoritatively as scripture. This probably indicates that even the Essene community did not regard the Apocrypha as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books.3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).