By Keith Thompson
The ancient
Israelites did not believe Apocrypha was scripture
Roman Catholics accept the Old
Testament apocrypha as inspired scripture. However, to do so flies in the face
of early Israelite belief. In Romans 3:2 Paul declared, “the Jews
were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). To be “entrusted” with
something entails that you know what you are to take care of. Thus, the ancient
Jews must have known what the oracles of God were since they were entrusted
with them. The same Greek word for “entrusted” is used in 1 Thessalonians 2:4
of the apostles being entrusted with the gospel. This likewise means the apostles must
have known what the saving gospel message was. Hence, since the ancient
Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and must have therefore known what
the oracles of God were, we must examine what they said the
Hebrew canon was by studying history and then give their canon weight.
Their canon did not include the apocrypha.
In the first century Jesus affirmed
the long standing three-fold division of the Hebrew Old Testament canon which
existed in his day among the Jews: that is, the law, the prophets and the
Psalms. Jesus often spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” or “Moses and the
Prophets” (Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16, 29; 31). And in Luke 24:44 he
succinctly stated, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the
Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). The “Psalms” here
refer to the Hagiographa which, as we know from the Talmud and the prologue to
Ecclessiasticus, were the books of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles
(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the
Apocrypha, [Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 8; Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church, [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 200). Hence, Christ did not include the
Apocrypha as canonical scripture. The Hebrew canon he used ended with these Hagiographa
books. We will demonstrate this three-fold division of the Hebrew canon was the
common position of the ancient Israelites.
In the section of the Babylonian
Talmud called Baba Bathra 14
containing a baraitha tradition formulated between A.D. 70 to 200, this
three-fold division of the Hebrew canon is also affirmed with all the books
listed in order. 24 books are listed and they do not include the apocrypha
(F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture,
[InterVarsity, 1988], pp. 29-30).
In 130 B.C. the Israelite grandson of
Jesus ben Sira wrote in the prologue of his Greek translation of the apocryphal
book Ecclestiasticus that such apocryphal books were not part of the Hebrew
canon which was divided into three sections. In the prologue mention is made of
“the law and the prophets, and others that have followed their steps.” It
continues noting, “And not only these
things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books,
have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language” (Prologue
to Ecclesiasticus quoted in The Apocrypha,
trans. Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The
Septuagint with Apocrypha, [Hendrickson, 1990], p. 74). Expert on the
apocrypha Roger Beckwith notes the implications of this text: “The translator
explicitly distinguishes ‘these things’ (i.e. Ecclesiasticus, or uncanonical
Hebrew compositions such as Ecclesiasticus) from 'the Law itself and the
Prophets and the rest of the Books.' Moreover, he regards even the Hagiographa
as 'ancestral' (patrivwn) books long enough esteemed to have been translated
into Greek, and their number as complete. And not only does he state that in
his own day there was this threefold canon, distinguished from all other
writings, in which even the Hagiographa formed a closed collection of old
books, but he implies that such was the case in his grandfather’s time also” (Roger
Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the
New Testament Church, [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 111). Notice here the Hebrew
canon likewise ended with the aforementioned Hagiographa books and did not
include the apocrypha.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus likewise affirmed the
three-fold division of the Hebrew canon, though he divided it a bit
differently. Nevertheless, he did not include the apocrypha. He wrote: “we do
not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as
the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22 . .
. Of these, five are the books of Moses . . . the prophets after Moses wrote the
events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain
hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life” (Josephus, Against Apion 1.8). Thus, Josephus held
to only 22 books thereby excluding the apocrypha. Other ancient Jews said there
were 24 books (such as the Talmud in Baba
Bathra, 14) since they did not attach Ruth to Judges and Lamentation to
Jeremiah as Josephus did. Protestants hold the same Old Testament canon as
Josephus and the other ancient Jews, we just number them differently and do not
combine certain books as the ancient Jews did. As even The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “For the Old Testament
Protestants follow the Jewish canon” (New
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, Biblical Canon, p. 29). Beckwith explains
Josephus’s 22 book canon consisted of “the five books of Moses,” the “thirteen
books” of the prophets which were Job, Joshua, Judges (with Ruth), Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah (with Lamentations), Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets
(combined as one), Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther. Then the four
“remaining books” Josephus mentions were Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
Song of Songs (Roger Beckwith, The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 253).
Hence, Josephus did not include the apocrypha as canon.
The first century Alexandrian Jew
Philo affirmed this three-fold division of the Old Testament canon when
describing the scriptures of the Jewish sect known as the Essenes or
Theraputae, thereby rejecting the apocrypha as well. Philo mentions “the laws
and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns and
psalms and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are
increased and brought to perfection” (Philo, Contemplative Life, 25 quoted in R. Laird Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity of the
Scriptures, [Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1995], p. 135). R. Laird Harris notes Philo’s third division of the canon which is
“hymns and psalms and all kinds of other things by reason of which
knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection” is very similar to
Josephus’s third division of the canon which, again, is “hymns to God and
precepts for the conduct of human life.” And as we explained earlier,
Josephus’s third division here did not contain the apocrypha. Thus, as Harris
argues, Philo was agreeing with Josephus’s 22 book canon which excluded the
apocrypha. Harris also notes F. F. Bruce is in agreement on this point (R. Laird Harris, Inspiration
and Canonicity of the Scriptures, [Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1995], pp.
135-136).
Hence, Jesus and the ancient Jews
affirmed a Hebrew canon which did not include the apocrypha. And since the
oracles of God were entrusted to these ancient Jews, which entails they knew
what they were entrusted with, we must agree with them on the identity of the
Hebrew canon and reject the apocrypha. It makes no sense for Catholics to hold
to apocryphal books the ancient Israelites did not consider canonical.
Finally, in A.D. 90 the Jewish elders
at the assembly at Jamnia discussed if the canonical books of Ecclesiastes and
Song of Songs (or possibly just Ecclesiastes) were truly canonical (Roger
Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the
New Testament Church, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], p. 275). Roman
Catholics claim this assembly proves the Hebrew canon was not closed or
settled. However, William Webster’s remarks are important: “The fact is, the
discussion of the books was not over whether certain books, previously deemed
uncanonical, should be raised to canonical status, but whether those
traditionally held as canonical [Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs], should remain
so” (William Webster, Holy Scripture,
Vol. 2, [Christian Resources Inc., 2001], pp. 322-323 brackets mine). Or as
Beckwith observes, “The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of
Jamnia about AD 90 goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather
more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to
the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about
the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.P. Lewis and S.Z.
Leiman. . . . The decision at Jamnia dealt only with Ecclesiastes and the Song
of Songs – or, according to Rabbi Akiba, with Ecclesiastes alone. How, then,
can it have decided the canonicity of books which, as far as we know, the
assembly there did not even discuss?” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985], pp. 275-276).
Many
Apocryphal books can be shown to not have been written by purported authors
The Letter of Jeremiah is included in Catholic bibles as the final
chapter of Baruch. This text is
purported to be written by the biblical Jeremiah who lived in 7th
and 6th centuries B.C. during the Babylonian destruction of
Jerusalem and exile. However, Metzger notes, “Contrary to its title and opening
sentence (1:1), this little pamphlet is not a letter nor was it sent by
Jeremiah to those who were about to be led into Babylonian exile. . . . A hint
as to the date when it was written may be found in verse 3, where the author
speaks of the captivity of the Jews as lasting for seven generations. This
would suggest a date of composition some time about 300 B.C., or thereafter”
(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the
Apocrypha, [Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 96). Gerald Hammond and
Austin Busch also note, “A Greek fragment of the Epistle of Jeremiah from ca.
100 B.C.E. found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, taken together with the allusions
to the work in 2 Maccabees (2:2), mandates a date of composition before the
first century B.C.E. – most likely in the second or third century, but perhaps
as early as the late fourth century” (Gerald Hammond, Austin Busch, The English Bible, Vol. 2, [W. W. Norton
& Company, 2012], p. 850).
Another Apocryphal book is known as
the Wisdom of Solomon. Roman Catholics
accept this spurious work. It purports to be written by the biblical Hebrew
King Solomon who lived during the 10th century B.C. However, Metzger
notes it was “composed in Greek sometime about 100 B.C. and A.D. 40. In order
to gain a wider audience for his literary work, the author writes in the name
of Solomon” (Bruce Metzger, An
Introduction to the Apocrypha, [Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 67).
Emerson B. Powery agrees with this dating and based on the internal evidence in
Wisdom of Solomon 19:13-16 notes the
author was a Hellenized Alexandrian Jewish immigrant and not King Solomon
(Emerson B. Powery, Wisdom of Solomon,
ed. Gale A. Yee, et al., The Apocrypha:
Fortress Commentary on the Bible Study Edition, [Fortress Press, 2016], pp.
979-980). It is a shame Roman Catholic accept
such spurious forgeries as scripture.
2 Esdras was attached to an appendix in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. It purports to be written by
the biblical Ezra who lived in the 5th century B.C. during the
Babylonian exile of the Tribe of Judah. However, the evidence shows 2 Esdras
was not actually written by the biblical Ezra, nor was it written any time
close to the biblical Ezra. As biblical scholar and textual critic Bruce
Metzger confirmed, “The author of these chapters [3 to 14] was an unknown Jew
who probably wrote in Aramaic about the end of the first Christian century.
Near the middle of the next century an unknown Christian author added in Greek
an introductory section, which is now chapters 1 and 2. About the middle of the
following century another unknown Christian author appended chapters 15 and 16,
also in Greek. The original Aramaic text of chapters 3 to 14 has perished”
(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the
Apocrypha, [Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 22). The scholars Gerald
Hammond and Austin Busch agree and also note the first two chapters and the
last two chapters “allude to writings from the Old and New Testaments and are
conversant with ancient Christian ideas (e.g. God’s privileging of the church
over Israel) and with historical events datable to the third century” (Gerald
Hammond, Austin Busch, The English Bible,
Vol. 2, [W. W. Norton & Company, 2012], p. 632).
Apocrypha contain errors and are thus
not scripture.
The author of 1 Maccabees affirms at
the time of his writing there was not a prophet in Israel, and that Israel
needed one (I Maccabees 4:46). This means the author of this book admitted he
was not a prophet and thus his book should not be considered inspired or
canonical.
Moreover, 2 Maccabees 15:38-39 asks
its readers to forgive the book of its shortcomings. It says: “38I also will
here make an end of my narration. 39Which if I have done well, and as it
becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be
pardoned me” (2 Maccabees 15:38-39). This is not something a book inspired by
the Holy Spirit of God would say. The Holy Spirit makes no mistakes or
shortcomings, nor does He need to be "pardoned" for anything.
There are so many historical
inaccuracies in the apocryphal book of Judith that some Catholic scholars go so
far as to attribute them to copyists mistakes or they say Judith should not be
read as a real history but instead as fiction or allegory (Daniel J.
Harrington, S. J., Invitation to the
Apocrypha, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999], p. 42). Indeed, Gerald West notes the
“number of historical and geographic inaccuracies [makes it] difficult to date
its composition” (Gerald West, Judith,
eds. James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson, Eerdmans
Commentary on the Bible, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003], p. 748). Regarding Judith’s
glaring errors, Metzger notes, “the story is, sheer fiction . . . the book teems
with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright
errors. For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles
in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and
4:2f., involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon)
at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time when the
Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they
were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media
(1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14) . . . The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is
dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the
Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and
a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic
date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting” (Bruce
Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha,
[Oxford University Press, 1957], pp. 50-51).
Scholars note the apocryphal book
Tobit falsely claimed Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15). However,
he was actually the son of Sargon II. Tobit also falsely claims Nineveh was
captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5). However, it was actually
captured by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares. In fact, Josh McDowell notes, “Tobit was
supposedly alive when Jeroboam staged his revolt in 931 B.C. and was still
living at the time of the Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.), yet the book of Tobit
says he lived only 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)” (Josh McDowell, Answers to Tough Questions, [Tyndale
House Publishers, 1988], p. 48).
very usefu. thanks.
ReplyDeletedo you have a pdf versio of this essay.?