|
Last time we began to
examine reasons why is impossible for any thinking person committed to
the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture to regard the Apocrypha
as the Word of God. So far we have looked at:
1) the meaning of the
term Apocrypha;
2) the historical value of the Apocrypha.
We now continue.
3) The Jewish View of the Apocrypha
Third, it is crucial to recognize that these books were
Jewish books compiled before the birth of Christ.
Therefore, evaluating the disposition of the Jews regarding their
canonicity is paramount. The importance of the following fact cannot
be underestimated: "Since the New Testament explicitly states that
Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of
the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered
the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always
rejected the Apocrypha."1
As biblical authority Dr. F. F. Bruce writes, "When we think of
Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that
they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of
the canon…. [W]hen in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the
apostles appealed to ‘the scriptures’, they appealed to an authority
which was equally acknowledged by their opponents."2
In other words, there was universal Jewish rejection of the
Apocrypha.
The canon of the Jews (limited to the 39 books of the Protestant
Old Testament) was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted.
This means that Jesus and the apostles never accepted the Apocrypha as
God’s word: "...Christ and the apostles used and believed the groups
of books accepted in the Hebrew canon, and none others. For those who
find their authority in Christ and His apostles, this would seem to be
enough."3
In confirmation, we may observe that the New Testament never cites
the Apocrypha as an authority, if it even cites it at all. Neither
Jesus nor the New Testament authors ever quoted from it by way of the
Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament). This is so in spite of their quoting from 35 of the 39 Old
Testament books. Indeed, directly or indirectly the New Testament
quotes the Old Testament over 600 times, but an apocryphal book is not
cited by name even once. This speaks volumes as to the New
Testament authors’ view of the Apocrypha. Because the Jews, Jesus and
the Apostles clearly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, the burden
of proof must be met by Catholics to show that the reasons for its
rejection were spurious and that it deserved canonization. This is
something the Catholic Church can never do.
Even Catholics, by their use of the term "deuterocanonical," as
applied to the Apocrypha, agree at this point that the Jews rejected
the Apocrypha as Scripture. In other words, the term implies the
Apocrypha is a second canon added to the one the Jews accepted. Dr.
Bruce also points out that Jerome’s distinction between the books that
were authenticated by the Hebrews and the books that were to be read
only for edification is maintained by Roman Catholic scholars:
As for the status of the books which Jerome called apocryphal
[i.e., those to be excluded from the canon but which could be used
for edification], there is generally agreement among Roman Catholic
scholars today (as among their colleagues of other Christian
traditions) to call them "deuterocanonical"… Jerome’s distinction is
thus maintained in practice, even if it does not enjoy conciliar
support.4
Former Roman Catholic William Webster points out that John Cosin’s
book, A Scholastical History of the Canon, documents over 50
major church writers and theologians from the eighth to the sixteenth
centuries who held to Jerome’s view:
That this was the general view of the church up to as late as the
sixteenth century is evidenced by these comments from Cardinal
Cagetan, the great opponent of Luther in the Reformation, taken from
his commentary on the Old Testament:… "Now, according to his
[Jerome’s] judgment… these books… are not canonical,… Yet, they may
be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the
edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the
canon of the Bible for that purpose."5
In other words, although not Scripture they could be
termed "canonical" since they were included with the canon and
used for edification. This may explain why some in the early Church
referred to the Apocrypha as "canonical"—because these books were
sometimes included with the canon. But the meaning of canonical
here refers to placement, not to the status of inspired Scripture.
This shows that it might be easy for some to see this different use of
the term and conclude a given writer believed the books were as
canonical as Scripture.
Further, in "The Biblical Canon" David G. Dunbar, President of
Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania also
illustrates how the Apocrypha came to be accepted and why it should be
rejected, regardless of its placement in the canon by Rome. He points
out that one reason for its acceptance in the early church was due to
Gentile Christian ignorance as to Jewish views on the canon. Another
reason concerned the manuscript change from scroll into codex form:
There is then no compelling reason to revise the historic
Protestant evaluation of the Apocrypha. The New Testament writers
did not acknowledge these books as Scripture, nor did a significant
number of the Patristic writers who witnessed to the Hebrew
tradition of twenty-two biblical books. That a wider range of books
than those of the Hebrew canon came to be included in the Septuagint
was due in part to the increasing ignorance among Gentile Christians
of Jewish views on the subject. In addition, the move from scrolls
to codex form may well have added to the confusion of the early
Christians. As Bruce Metzger observes, "Books which heretofore had
never been regarded by the Jews as having any more than a certain
edifying significance were now placed by Christian scribes in one
codex side by side with the acknowledged books of the Hebrew canon.
Thus it would happen that what was first a matter of convenience in
making such books of secondary status available among Christians
became a factor in giving the impression that all of the books
within such a codex were to be regarded as authoritative."6
In other words, because the Apocrypha was sometimes placed with the
Old Testament Jewish canon, whether for convenience or out of Gentile
Christian ignorance of Jewish views on the canon, some Christians came
to believe these books were also to be considered inspired.
Our argument so far explains one reason why it required almost 1700
years for Catholics to officially accept the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Webster, whom we cited above, quotes the New Catholic Encyclopedia
as agreeing that the Old Testament canon, for Rome, was not
decisively determined until Trent: "The Council of Trent definitively
settled the matter of the Old Testament canon. That this had not been
done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to
the time of Trent."7
Webster’s comments as a former Catholic are also relevant, "I
discovered to my surprise that it was the Roman Catholic Church, not
the Protestant, which was responsible for the introduction of novel
teachings very late in the history of the church."8
4) The Apocrypha and the Septuagint
The Septuagint (LXX) of the 4th century contained the Apocrypha,
but there is no proof the Alexandrian Jews regarded it as Scripture or
even that the LXX of the first century contained the Apocrypha. (Our
manuscripts of the LXX date only from the 4th century A.D. and thus to
state the LXX did contain the Apocrypha is an assumption.) Regardless,
the attitude of the Jews and first Jewish Christians toward the
Apocrypha suggests it would not have been included in the LXX
of the 1st century. Further, it is important to realize there is a
direct correlation between accepting a high view of the Jewish canon
and a low view of the Apocrypha and vice versa. The Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible observes: "In the Early Church
the degree in which the Hebrew Canon was esteemed determined the
attitude adopted toward the Apocrypha."9
In other words, those Christians who honored the providential hand of
God in determining the Old Testament Jewish canon of necessity
rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. But those Christians who held to
a lower view of the Jewish canon were, quite logically, more inclined
to accept the books the Jews had rejected. Given the controversies
that existed between Christians and Jews in the early centuries, this
acceptance of the Apocrypha on the part of some Christians is at least
understandable, despite the consequences. Dr. Harrison discusses this
important subject in more detail, beginning with the Jewish view of
the Apocrypha in the 2nd century:
It seems clear that from the beginning of the 2nd century the
excluded literature [the Apocrypha] was no longer of particular
concern to the Jews…. Indeed the Midrash Qoheleth warned that
confusion would only result if more than the canonical Scriptures
were read, and apart from Ecclesiasticus, which survived in Hebrew
literature until the twelfth century A.D., the Apocryphal writings
of Judaism were generally considered to be at best unsuitable for
devotion, and at worst, a positive danger to faith. In consequence
of this attitude it can be remarked that the fact that this corpus
has survived at all is due to the interest and activity of the
Christian Church, many of whose members found these compositions
both interesting and enlightening. At the beginning of the Christian
era the Church felt no particular inclination to proscribe those
works that were not included in the Hebrew Scriptures, and there was
little doubt that familiarity with such writings led to their being
referred to occasionally within the general context of Scripture.
However, there is no instance in the New Testament where any of the
writers cited an Apocryphal composition as though they recognized it
as inspired Scripture or as in any way connected with matters of
spiritual authority. Even C. C. Torrey, who compiled a substantial
list of what he deemed to be New Testament allusions to, or
quotations from, the Apocrypha was compelled to concede that, in
general, the Apocryphal literature was left unnoticed by the New
Testament authors. When the latter quoted from the Old Testament by
way of the LXX, which preserved the apocryphal writings, they never
cited material from any book that was not part of the Hebrew canon.10
The omission, if the Apocrypha was present and regarded as
Scripture, is more than glaring. Even assuming the LXX originally
contained the Apocrypha, Harrison goes on to state:
The fact that the Alexandrian [LXX] translators of the Hebrew
Bible chose to preserve for posterity certain extra-biblical
compositions need not in itself necessarily imply that such writings
were regarded as of equal inspiration and authority with the Hebrew
scriptures.
From the contents of certain 4th & 5th century Biblical codices
it would appear that there was no rigidly determined order of
canonical books; that some "outside books" were incorporated into
the canon; and that there was no definite tradition in the Greek
manuscripts regarding which extra-canonical works were to be
included…. Insofar as the early Christians included apocryphal
writings in their list of the Scriptures they appear to have been
following the traditions of the Alexandrian canon rather than that
of the Palestinian Jews.11
In other words, the Hellenistic treatment of the scriptural canon
was sometimes decidedly different from the traditional Jewish
treatment. Not unexpectedly then, some of the Greek fathers such as
Augustine and Clement, who used the Septuagint that included the
Apocrypha, may, because of that fact, have implied or cited them as
inspired or Scripture. But those connected with Palestine and the
Hebrew canon, such as Jerome and Africanus, declared these books were
not Scripture and hence of no value as to scriptural authority. Again,
some books had degrees of value for historical or other uses and could
be read in church services. That they were termed ecclesiastical ("of
the Church") along with the fact that some noted individuals may have
considered them Scripture, as well as the earlier mentioned switch
from scroll to codex form, accounts for their presence in certain
compilations of Scripture.
Some have argued that certain Jews did accept the Apocrypha.
However, F. F. Bruce explains why the idea that the Alexandrian Jews
accepted the Apocrypha is wrong:
It has frequently been suggested that, while the canon of the
Palestinian Jews was limited to the 24 books of the Law, Prophets
and Writings, the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more
comprehensive. There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there
is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of
scripture. The reason for thinking that they did, and that it was a
more comprehensive canon than that acknowledged in Palestine, is
that Greek-speaking Christians, who naturally took over the Greek
Old Testament which was already in existence, took over the Greek
version of a number of other books and gave some measure of
scriptural status to them also.12
In other words, the fact that, for whatever reason, some Hellenized
Christians accepted the Apocrypha cannot be taken to mean that the
Alexandrian Jews accepted it as well. Even if they had somehow
accepted it as Scripture, they would have been wrong to do so.
In the following discussion we will show why this Christian
acceptance of the Apocrypha was a serious mistake.
5) The Apocrypha and Propheticity
Doctors Geisler and MacKenzie have pointed out that a book was
considered canonical if it was written by a prophet of God, confirmed
by an act of God, contained the power of God, told the truth about
God, and was accepted by the people of God. The Apocrypha fails on all
counts. There’s no proof or claim in the Apocrypha that it was written
by God’s prophets; these books were never supernaturally confirmed by
God; they do not have the same transforming and other power one finds
in the canonical Scripture (Heb. 4:12) (unless they repeat biblical
truth in other books) and they do not always tell the truth about God,
man, history, etc., since they contain errors, contradictions and even
heresies. Finally, "There were no continuous or universal acceptance
of these books by the church of God," Roman Catholic claims to the
contrary notwithstanding.13
Thus, e.g.,
Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage,
the true test of canonicity is propheticity…. In fact, the
entire Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. Moses, who
wrote the first five books, was a prophet (Deut. 18:15). The rest of
the Old Testament books were known as "the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17)
since these two sections are called "all the scriptures" (Luke
24:27). The "apostles and [New Testament] prophets" (Eph. 3:5)
composed the entire New Testament. Hence, the whole Bible is a
prophetic book, including the final book (cf. Rev. 20:7, 9-10). As
we will see, this cannot be said for the apocryphal books. There is
strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic. But
since propheticity is a test for canonicity, this would eliminate
the Apocrypha from the canon.14
In light of this, now consider a summary of features pertaining to
the Apocrypha:
• None of the Apocryphal books claim to be
written by a prophet.
• Divine confirmation of the Apocrypha is
lacking.
• Predictive prophecy does not exist in the
Apocrypha.
• No new messianic truth can be found in the
Apocrypha.
• The Jewish community itself acknowledged
that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the
Apocrypha was written.
• The apocryphal books, although written by
Jews, were never listed in the Jewish Bible along with the
prophets or any other section of the canon.
Not once is even a single apocryphal book cited authoritatively by
a prophetic book written after it. "Taken together, this provides
overwhelming evidence that the Apocrypha was not prophetic and,
therefore, should not be part of the canon of Scripture."15
Worse yet for Catholic claims, "there is virtually an unbroken line of
support from ancient to modern times for rejecting the Apocrypha as
part of the canon. This is true for both Jewish teachers and Christian
Fathers."16
Canonically, the grounds on which the Apocrypha was accepted
undermine the true test for canonicity—propheticity. In short, if the
Apocrypha can be accepted in the canon, lacking, as it does, the
characteristics that meet the true test of canonicity, then other
noncanonical books should be accepted on the same grounds.17
In other words, without the acceptance of more stringent criteria
for canonicity, there is no reason why the Catholic Church could not
accept even more books into the canon. Could something like the
Book of Mormon or other cultic scriptures somehow find their way
into the canon of a 21st
Century Catholicism? The issue is not whether Rome would accept such
books as Scripture now; it probably wouldn’t. The issue is on what
logical basis Rome could deny such books canonicity. If Rome has
already accepted books that deny Scripture, then certainly such
other books that deny Scripture cannot logically be excluded on the
same basis.
In the next article we will turn our attention to the issue of
divine providence and the canon.
Notes:
1 In Norman L. Geisler, Ralph
MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and
Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), p. 169.
2 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of
Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 41.
3 R. Laird Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1971), p. 184.
4 Bruce, p. 105.
5 William Webster, "Did I
Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church?" in John Armstrong (gen.
ed.), Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What
Divides and Unites Us (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 276.
6 David G. Dunbar, "The
Biblical Canon" in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (eds.),
Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Academie Books, 1986), pp. 309-310.
7 Webster, p. 277.
8 Ibid.
9 Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 205.
10 R. K. Harrison, An
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1974), pp. 1186.
11 Ibid., pp. 1186-87.
12 Bruce, p. 45.
13 G. Douglas Young, "The
Apocrypha," in Carl Henry, Revelation and the Bible (Baker),
p. 272.
14 Geisler and MacKenzie, p.
167.
15 Ibid., p. 167.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., p. 158.
|
