Sunday, February 27, 2011 pm
HOW DID WE GET OUR BIBLES? (3)
The Canon of the Bible (2)
Why the Apocrypha Does NOT Belong in the Bible
We are in the midst of a study dealing with the integrity of our
Bible. Our goal in this
study is to verify that the Bible we have IS the Word of God as He
intended for us to have it.
We are seeking to answer questions and challenges related to which books
should actually be recognized as God’s word and why others should be
rejected. We are also
interested in explaining how we can know that our Bibles, in the English
language (and other languages) are accurate even though we do not
possess the original “autographs”.
Thus far we have
noticed claims from both the Old and New Testaments that they claim to
be inspired and thus they ought to be given serious consideration.
If they are inspired (and I believe they are) then the message
needs to be studied, applied and taught to others.
In our last lesson we examined the Canon of the Old Testament and
showed how the teachings of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament
respected the 39 books we have as the word of God.
TODAY, we want to examine what is referred to as the Apocrypha
and notice why it is NOT to be considered as the word of God or Canon (a
word referring to those writings which make up the divine standard –
i.e. inspired and preserved with the hand of God and therefore
authoritative). Time
permitting, we will also examine, how the books of the New Testament
were chosen.
a.
Both the
Old Testament and New Testament set boundaries that were not to be
stepped beyond.
i.
Concerning the Old Testament
they were instructed to not add to or take away from God’s message –
1.
Deut 4:1-3, "Now, O
Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to
observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the
Lord God of your fathers is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the
commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
2.
Deut 12:32 "Whatever I
command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take
away from it.
3.
Prov. 30:5-6, “Every word
of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a
liar.”
ii.
Concerning the New Testament
we find the following:
1.
Gal. 1:6-9, “But even if
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we
have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so
now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what
you have received, let him be accursed.
2.
1
Cor. 4:6-7, “Now these
things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos
for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is
written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the
other.”
3.
2
John 9, “Whoever
transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have
God. He who abides in the
doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.”
4.
Rev. 22:18-19, “For
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are
written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of
Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book.“
iii.
These
verses are consistent with God’s expectations of His people.
Scriptures record many who respected His boundaries and others
who transgressed them and the resulting consequences.
b.
Yet there
are many who have produced works that they claim to be from God or that
ought to be treated equal to the Word of God.
Or man has produced works that OTHERS views as inspired and thus
put them on equal standing with the Bible.
Can we accept such and be pleasing to God?
a.
What is
the Apocrypha?
The word “apocrypha” actually means, “hidden”.
The term has reference to books whose authorship, authenticity or
origins are in question.
The Random House Dictionary gives the following definitions, “1.
a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in
the Septuagint and the
Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from
Protestant editions of the
Bible.
2. Various religious writings of uncertain origin
regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.”[1]
NOTE: The number (14) will vary depending on different sources and what
one accepts as Canon.
While there are other apocryphal books
(literally hundreds of them), our focus in this section is on those
books found in some Bibles (The Catholic version called the New American
Bible [NOT to be confused with the New American Standard Version] and
the Revised Standard Version [RSV] and NRSV) which consists of 9 or so
books or additions to books.
b.
Facts
about the apocrypha.
i.
Sometimes
called the deuterocanonical books or “the second canon.”
ii.
It
consists of works which were written during the intertestamental period
(within 200 years of the coming of Christ) and some n the 2nd
century AD.
Malachi, was written around 400 BC, so these works appear considerably
later than the final writings.
iii.
These
books include: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Sirach,
Baruch, Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Susanna and Bell and the
Dragon) & 1 and 2 Maccabees.
These books consist of some of the history of the Jews during the period
of silence from 400 B.C. until the coming of Christ, some short sayings
(like proverbs), stories about Biblical and extra-Bibilical characters,
and some supposed symbolic prophecy.
iv.
The
apocrypha of Catholicism was not officially canonized by them until 1546
at the Council of Trent when a decree was issued that they were to be
included as authoritative.
The Council of Trent was a series of 25 meetings held mostly in Trent
(1545-1563) in which the Catholic Church met to address the reformation
movement and its teachings.
An interesting observation about this council is that at the same time
these apocryphal books were declared canon, CHURCH TRADITION was also
declared to of God and thus to be treated as authoritative and equal to
scripture.
The decree pronounced that anyone who “does not accept as sacred and
canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their
parts” was to be anathema.[2]
c.
Why it is not accepted as Canon
(inspired)
i.
The books
do not meet the standard of inspiration for the Old Testament.
Recall how we noted that for a book to meet the standard of inspiration
in Judaism it required the following: 1) Written by a known prophet of
God; 2) miraculous or prophetic confirmation; 3) consistent with the
overall message of God’s word (cf. Deut. 13:1-3).
NOTE: This is important.
The lower your standard is for the word of God, the lower your standard
will be for accepting and following it!
ii.
Jewish
scholars in general REJECTED the apocryphal books as uninspired.
In fact, after the destruction of Jerusalem, they sought to
destroy them. Consider
Romans 3:1-2 which says,
“What advantage then has the Jew,
or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way!
Chiefly, because to them was committed the oracles of God.”
iii.
To my
knowledge none of the apocryphal books claim inspiration as does the
rest of the portion of the Old Testament we have.
You never find expressions like, “thus says the Lord”, etc.
The point being, the authors may have never intended them to be
inspired, but passing down traditions, historical accounts, stories,
etc.
iv.
All of
these books were written in Greek, whereas the original Old Testament
was written in Hebrew (with small portions in Aramaic).
Hebrews was the language of Israel, the writings of Moses and the
prophets. Thus these books
were out of character with verified inspired O.T. writings.
v.
It was
not accepted as Canonical until 1546 at the Council of Trent by the
Catholic Church along with the traditions.
Why so long to formally recognize them?
vi.
There is
a reason why it was accepted then.
The apocrypha justified Catholic practices not found elsewhere in
scripture and which were being refuted by the Protestant reformation
movement. For example:
1.
Prayers
for the dead (2 Macc. 12:39-46).
2.
Purgatory
(2 Mac. 12:43-45)
3.
Salvation
by alms giving (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:8-9, 17)
4.
The
practice of magic spells (Tobit 6:5-8) – a text where instructions are
given to keep away evil spirits by making smoke from the heart, liver
and gall of a fish.
5.
Saints in
heaven interceding for those on earth (2 Mac. 15:11-14).
Heb. 4:14-16 describes our Lord as our only intercessor.
vii.
There are
also historical and internal inaccuracies.
viii.
FURTHERMORE, the apocrypha is never quoted, nor appealed to by Jesus or
the New Testament writers.
ix.
When you
weigh the evidence for and against, it is clear that the books of the
Apocrypha are doubtful at best as to being inspired.
d.
Why it is believed by some to be part of the Canon?
i.
There are
some arguments made to justify the apocrypha.
I would like to take a few moments to examine some of these.
ii.
Arguments
in favor of the apocrypha:
1.
Some
argue that some passages of the New Testament allude to the Apocryphal
writings. For example: Heb.
11:35 speaks of women receiving their children from the dead.
2 Maccabees 7 supposedly gives details of such being fulfilled.
Other passages such as Matt. 7:12, Jas. 1:19, 6, Heb. 1:3, etc.
supposedly could be referencing the apocrypha as well.
2.
Portions
were found in the LXX (Septuagint), the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other
early documents.
NOTE: What is the Septuagint?
It was the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Its significance is that it is the FIRST example of translation
from one language to another of scripture.
It was believed to have been translated by around 70 scholars,
hence the abbreviation LXX (Roman numeral for 70).
Furthermore, in the day of Jesus
and the apostles, they frequently quoted from the Septuagint.
3.
Because
Jesus and the New Testament quote from the Septuagint, which includes
portions of the apocrypha, therefore it is to be accepted.
4.
Some of
the so-called early church Fathers quoted from some of them.
5.
Some of
the so-called church fathers accepted the Apocrypha as Canon.
In fact, earlier councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
accepted them as Canon under the influence of Augustine.
6.
Some
early Greek manuscripts included some of the apocryphal books in them.
7.
Also,
early translations, including the original KJV, included them.
iii.
Answering
the arguments made in support of the Apocrypha.
1.
As to
quotes in the New Testament, the possible references are vague and can
be appealed to by other passages.
There is no direct support such as quotes that appeal to the
apocrypha.
2.
Found in
the LXX (Septuagint). Some
of the books are found, but they are later copies of the Septuagint.
The copies we have are more than 500 years after it was
translated (beginning in the 3rd century BC and completed 132
BC). The apocrypha could
have been added to these copies.
FURTHERMORE, there is not consistency in which books are in which
copies (i.e. they do not all match).
3.
As to
Jesus and His apostles quoting from the LXX: it is SIGNIFICANT that they
NEVER quote or refer to the apocrypha, but they DO appeal to every other
part of the Old Testament (cf. Luke 24:44, etc.)
4.
Found in
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Portions of the apocrypha are found there, but so are a number of other
non-inspired works. The
significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be seen in a later lesson.
Let us suffice it to say, that the scholars who preserved these
documents copied many things.
5.
Quoted by
early church leaders – while some quoted from some of these works, many
others did not. Furthermore,
many of these early church leaders rejected the apocrypha.
So the findings are inconclusive.
Furthermore, they quoted from many non-inspired works.
Just as I might quote the writings of someone I agree with, but I
don’t consider them equal to the Word of God. In fact, their relevance
is only useful so far as it agrees with the Word of God.
Also, realize that we KNOW they were NOT inspired men.
They were fallible and wrote what would be the equivalent of
commentaries or addressing some subject and appealing to various
scriptures. We shall see
more of their importance in our next lesson.
6.
Found in
early translations and manuscripts, including the first editions of the
KJV. In most instances,
they were inserted as a supplement and not as equal to the inspired word
of God. Just as we have
study Bible and “helps” in the back of some of our reference Bibles, the
translators found some of these documents USEFUL, but that is not
equivalent to inspired.
Consider this: We have been
studying the psalms and frequently reference the superscriptions.
We know they are not inspired, but they can be helpful in
determining the background of a particular psalm.
And thus we can see that the Old
Testament we have IS complete.
The apocrypha, while it might be interesting reading and in some
instances helpful from a historical standpoint, it is NOT the inspired
word of God and should be considered with reservations.
Let us resolve to accept ALL of God’s word as well as its
boundaries.
Sources:
http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html
http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjcapocr.htm
[1] "apocrypha." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 25 Feb. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apocrypha>
[2] The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, pp. X, XV