Board index ‹ Bible

[AlphaT]

So, I'm very confused about this issue. I've heard that these books were added at the Council of Trent in the 1500's, and I've heard that the earliest Christians thought of these books as Scripture.

Could you give a brief history of these books, and then offer reasons why you think we should/shouldn't accept them as Scripture?

[jimwalton]

The Apocryphal books were written in the era between Malachi (around 400 BC) and Mark (around AD 60), in other words, between the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are historical books, and they're certainly religious, but, unlike the books of the OT, none of these books make any claims to prophetic revelation or divine inspiration. They were never recognized as Scripture by Palestinian Jews of the era, or of subsequent eras. They were, however, included in the Septuagint, along with other edifying literature, but the rabbis of Alexandria. They were never regarded as Scripture, though. In Amos 8.11 God had even prophesied an era of silence.

In addition, Jesus and the apostles never quote from the books of the Apocrypha authoritatively ("as it is written," common in the NT for quoting authoritative Scripture) in the NT. They were never regarded by the earliest Christians as Scripture, as you are wondering.

Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate (AD 400) refused to include the Apocryphal books in his translation (although it was incorporated after his death) for the above reasons, as well as because the books were written in Greek rather than Hebrew. Augustine (also around AD 400) argued that they should be included in the Bible. His reasoning was that the version of Scripture most often quoted by Jesus and the NT writers was the Septuagint, and since the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, so the Apocrypha must have been recognized by Jesus and the apostles. This was false reasoning, as we have already established that Jesus and the apostles didn't treat the Apocrypha as on the plane of Scripture.

Since Augustine wanted the Apocryphal books included, and Jerome didn't, debate over their inclusion in the Bible continued for more than a thousand years in the Catholic Church. Finally, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha for the
reasons given above, in addition to what they saw as inferior content. When Pope Paul III called the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to respond to the issues raised by the Protestants, the council rejected every argument presented by the Reformers, and in the process officially declared
the Apocrypha to be part of the Bible. That's when it became officially included in the Catholic Bible, but was never included in the Protestant Bible.

So I think they don't belong for the reasons I've given:

1. They don't make any claims to prophetic revelation or divine inspiration. Their writers don't seem to regard them as "the Word of the Lord," as do the OT prophetic writers.
2. They were never recognized as Scripture by Palestinian Jews of the era, or of subsequent eras.
3. The Apocryphal books were omitted from the earliest lists of the canon.
4. Jesus and the apostles never quote from the books of the Apocrypha authoritatively in the NT.
5. They are not treated as Scripture by the Church Fathers.
6. The Apocrypha contains some false teachings, such as...

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7)
Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9)
Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45)
God answers the prayers of dead people (Baruch 3:4)