Apocrypha: A Fresh new look

Apocrypha:

A Fresh Look

(Requiring Honest Answers)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Answers to Biblical Questions

Replies to our Readers



If you have honest Biblical questions, or
would like to share some spiritual insight,
please e-mail them to us:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Roger wrote:

You mentioned a subject I have to reply on, the Apocrypha. Did the church fathers quote these as Scripture?

Ans: Very much so, yes. Before 315 A.D. I found them quoting from all of the Apocrypha's books "as Scripture" over 352 times. This can be verified by checking Volume 10 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers Scripture Reference Index, where almost every verse quoted by the early Church is referenced.



Roger wrote:

I know they tend to be view(ed) more as non inspired historical books, but of good value for the stories they tell. What I have heard is that neither the Jews in the past or the early church regarded them as Scripture. As I said, I would think God would keep his Scripture pure in spite of all attempts to the contrary.

Ans: I guess I have somewhat of a less "divine providential" view of our, mind you, "Bible translations of today", if that is the right word for it. Probably not, but it's the closest word I have right now, so please try to hear me through (in spirit).

Since I have found out how "recent" our Bible is ("ONLY" meaning what books they "now" contain), I have had to reconsider some of what I believed for 26 years since becoming a Christian, in regard to this.



Speaking about the Same Thing
Firstly, allow me to establish some foundations of truth so that both of us will be using the same measuring rod for this analysis. This way we will be agreeing or disagreeing based on the same idea, instead of something else we both might "imagine" the other is saying. At least you will know from what root I am relating all this.

In reality, I don't have any agendas or goals respecting any subject. I don't care what the final outcome is concerning this subject, so long as it is God's truth (not mine; not man's; only God's).



God's Written Word vs. His Spoken Word
1) Before we begin, we must make the distinction between God's written Word and His spoken Word. In examining this subject (the Apocrypha), I will be focusing directly on His "written" Word, not His "spoken" Word. To talk about His "spoken" Word takes in a much larger area concerning prophets; what and how people "quote" God's Word; how His Word is preached, taught and so on. So, for this discussion I will only examine what has been regarded by thousands of His people as His written, inspired, Scriptures.



Can Man corrupt God's written Word?
So, can man corrupt God's written Word? This brings up another question which must be answered firstly: Can man "hinder" God's perfect will? Unless one wishes to conclude God as the author of sin (only logical conclusion to absolute predestination/Calvinism), we must admit that throughout the ages it is a reality that men have been able to hinder the will of God for man. Israel's history gives a long list of proof for this. King Saul's life is a perfect example of this. Jesus' prayer for Jerusalem was: "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!". Ananias and Sapphira's sin and other Biblical accounts, plus real life, confirm this as well. Jesus proved that man can hinder God's will by saying: Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye".

Yes, of course, God has His will and the fact that man does not do it, does not stop Him from working out His perfect will with those who will obey Him, while at the same time, "using" disobedient man to further His purposes for the testing, teaching and good of those who "do" obey Him.



Further Proof

A) It is true that God says: Ezekiel 33:11 "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" 18:23, 32 "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?" "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."

The word translated "pleasure" here is the Hebrew word "chaphets" meaning: to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with.

B) We also know that God created all people for His pleasure. Rev. 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy 'pleasure' they are and were created." The word translated "pleasure" here is the Greek word "thelema" meaning: will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure.

C) If it is true that God created every person for His will and pleasure, and that "God is love" (1John 4:8), and that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then it is right and logical to conclude that God would not "will" that His people sin and die in disobedience. Of course this truth is "flatly" stated in clear wording in the above quotation from God Himself as preserved in Ezekiel 33 & 18.

Therefore it is also right to conclude that when people do not obey God, this is "not" His will. We know that it is not His will for people to disobey His will, because He takes no pleasure in it. However, people "do" clearly disobey His will as both Scripture and everyday life point out. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that it is possible for men to do things against God's will (i.e.- hinder His will).

So, "yes" man can "hinder" God's perfect will?



Does God's Word stay pure?
2) Now the following is not meant to go against the truth that "My words shall never pass away", neither is it meant to go against the fact that God is able to preserve His Word no matter what men may do. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." (Psalms 12:6,119:89, 152) "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8) i.e.- God can and "does" preserve His Word no matter what men may do. However, "how", "where" and "through whom" He does this, is not specified, nor for us to decide. This is His business and the fact that He "does" preserve His Word does not mean any more than just that. We must be careful not to "read" into statements anything more than what they "actually" say. To do so is very foolish, and can be fatal if taken to an extreme.

First Stage Conclusions

So far it has been established that:

A) man can "hinder" God's perfect will, and
B) God "does" preserve His Word.



But, Can man corrupt God's written Word?
3) In respect to the Bibles that have been made since the Apostles, it is a well known fact that, in some of them, His Word has not remained pure. The Apostle Paul wrote: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." 2Corth. 2:17

A) The gnostics perverted the Apostolic writings many times during the early Church years and these were copied and passed around as Scripture by the heretics of those days. Anyone who is familiar with early Church history can attest to this. One, of many examples, is told by Irenaeus (pronounced: Eye-rain-ee-us), disciple of Polycarp, who wrote concerning the heresies of the Valentinians1:

Irenaeus Against Heresies
Chapter VIII - How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to support their own Pious Opinions.

"...while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions."

B) Most Greek scholars "won't" tell you that of all the Biblical manuscripts, there are some that contain corrupted books, passages and/or verses. They know this and it is elementary for them to know which are which when doing a study or modern translation. A simple read through of J.B. Lightfoot's notes on his translation work will confirm this.

C) We all know that the Jehovah Witnesses have changed their Bible to prove their own corrupt teachings.

D) The feminists and Unitarians have recently created their own Bibles making God neither male or female, besides taking other liberties with God's Holy Word.

E) King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed all of the Jewish Scriptures when he burned Jerusalem. God restored them all through Ezra, by having Ezra re-dictate them to some hand-picked scribes (a historical fact confirmed by Jewish history).

F) Even some prophets of the past were accused (by God) of adding to or taking away from what was spoken by Him. The books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are full of such charges against the prophets of their day.

F) In Proverbs 30:6 it says: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." This Scripture gives a very clear indication that changing God's word is indeed possible; otherwise why would such a warning be given?
Even Revelation gives a strong warning at its end: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book". If it wasn't "possible" to corrupt God's Word, then why would Jesus give such a warning here? We never find God warning people against growing wings and flying around carelessly because such is not possible for man to do. So the fact that Jesus "is making" such a warning in Revelation gives credence to the possibility that corruption to God's Holy Word is possible.

G) One of our web page readers wrote us concerning this very point. I would like to add his comments:

"I have read several books on the KJV issue and in the midst of some, like "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. Off the top of my head, she had several examples, I could look them up some time if you think they are necessary.
"Mr. Taylor, "Living Bible" lost his voice.
Mr. Jay Green, something happened.
Westcott and Hort, spiritualism and wierd things occurred.
Others as well.
"Also corruption of scripture included the idea of "plagerizing" men like Paul, "a letter as from us" 2Thess 2.
Brother David"

So, all the preceding are historical facts of reality before our eyes that prove that God allows corruption to happen to His Word by those who would depart from or never were on His path of holiness. Nevertheless, on the other hand, we also know that He will preserve His Holy Word somehow; hence there must still be a "remnant" who preserve His uncorrupted Word if we believe Him (& I do) that His "words will never pass away".

Second Stage Conclusions

So far it has been established that:

A) man can "hinder" God's perfect will, and
B) God "does" preserve His Word, but
C) it "is" possible for man to corrupt God's Holy Word in various circles.





Burning Questions
The Burning Question to us humans is:
Because God "does" preserve His Holy Word, does it mean that we can just pick up any ole translation and read it, with an assurance that it is truly God's unadulterated Word?



Answers
1) On one hand we have the fact that God's infallible Word will never pass away.

2) On the other hand, we have some people succeeding in corrupting/destroying it. From this, it would be faulty logic to think that all Bibles (because they are "called" Bibles or God's Word) are His uncorrupted Word, because we know, for one, that the Jehovah Witnesses and others have corrupted their Bibles.

Yes, His Word will never pass away. AMEN! Nor will men ever succeed in permanently destroying His inspired writings during any span of time. But this fact does not prove that what "you & I" have in our hands is "THAT" pure Word, nor does it prove that it isn't. I could decide to go out and get a J.W. Bible or a feminist one. Just because I believe it is truth does not make it so. God's statements about preserving His Word only proves that His Word exists; that it will never pass away; that it "can" be found. To read into this more than what He has said is to go against Godly logic and the truth as we can learn about (through history) and see with our own eyes from the few examples sited. If I conclude otherwise, I am only deceiving myself.

Furthermore, if I assume that whatever Bible I pick up is His complete Holy Word, I am actually putting my trust in faith (i.e.-faith in faith): in other words, that whatever I may do, irregardless of it being God's will or using discernment, I will find and be reading God's complete Word. Such a notion never, ever entered into the minds of the early Christians, who were already experiencing the fact that "grievous wolves" will "enter in among you, not sparing the flock." They were on their guard to protect the pure Word of God; that "a man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject (Titus 3:10)"; knowing full well that some who would call themselves Christians "are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". There has never been a time since Christ was on earth when the Church did not need to be on its guard concerning such things.

Some would disagree here by saying that since 397 A.D., when the "canon" of Scripture was fixed, we no longer need to be on our guard. It is true that they decided, then, what Scripture was to be included in all Bibles from that point on, and I accept that (noting that the entire Apocrypha was "then" included in the canon as Scripture). However, no one ever assumed that God's Word was safe from corrupting forces after this 397 A.D. council. In fact quite to the contrary. The Church was very much on its guard against corrupting influences, that in many cases, they may have gone overboard in their zealousness to protect it.



Reference Material:

The Books of the Apocrypha
[Excerpt from Preface to Apocrypha in "The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English" by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (1807-1862) originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851]

"The Alexandrian Jews possessed a sacred literature in the Septuagint translation, and where other works of the same national character were either written in Greek or translated from the Hebrew, these also were appended to the sacred books which they before possessed.

"The writers of the early Church, however, while expressly declaring their preference for the Hebrew Canon, quote the books of the "Apocrypha" as of equal authority with the Old Testament. And in this wise the Church popularly regarded them, and consequently made a free use of them. The influence of such writers as Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Augustine, in favour of the "Apocrypha," was very great...

"In more recent times it has been the unfortunate custom of English-speaking people to neglect or despise the Apocrypha: yet it forms a portion of the Bible of Christendom; it supplies the blank leaf between Nehemiah and the New Testament; and it comprises some of the literature of that period, which well illustrates the development and transition of Jewish religious thought generally."



More Reference:

Commonly Called Council on Canon of Scripture, 397 A.D.
(same as decided by Council of Roma, 382 A.D.; Council of Hippo, 393 A.D.)


THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE (A.D. 345-419)
CANON XXIV (Greek. xxvii)



That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, The Kings, 4 books. (Ed: 1 & 2 Kings = 1 & 2 Samuel in KJV)
The Chronicles, 2 books, Job, The Psalter
Five books of Solomon (Ed: Proverbs., Ecclesiastes., Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach)
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah, Jeremiah (includes Baruch), Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, 2 books, Macchabees, 2 books.

Third Stage Conclusions

So far it has been established that:

A) man can "hinder" God's perfect will, and
B) God "does" preserve His Word, but
C) it "is" possible for man to corrupt God's Holy Word in various circles, so
D) there are "no guarantees" that every Bible we pick up contains God's pure Word. We must be careful to "know" from what source it comes.
E) the Early Church did "indeed" quote the Apocrypha as Scripture, contrary to what we've been told.



Further explanations
During the last 250 years or so, various "clever" wolves have learned to understand the fundamentalist view (and a good view) that God's Word is infallible in its original language, as well as being preserved forever by Him. Taking this truth and by clever, but faulty logic, these wolves (now in Church leadership positions) were able to "twist" this view to mean "more" than what it actually claims. They would extend its basic truth to "include" the false assumption that all modern-day Bible translations, which have come under the "blessings" of the protestant Church, have preserved God's Word intact as well. This teaching has only laid a false foundation which can (& has) been used to deceive many into "blindly" believing that "their" own beloved Bible translation is the "complete" and correctly worded words of God that the Apostles and early Church read as Scripture. This is simply not true, but we have been duped into believing it is. Just read up on Westcott and Hort and see what they planned and did. This stuff isn't just hiding somewhere, but is out in the open for all to read, if anyone cares to know the truth. However, they know most people never look into it.

It was necessary for these wolves to make us believe in the infallibility of "our" Bible translations. This way after they were able to remove various books from the Old Testament canon (1769 A.D.) and later on "corrupt" newer translations (like they did to their modern derived "Nestle's" Greek N.T. of 18812), they could insert their own agendas. After all, they know it will be assumed to be "the Word of God".

One example of this agenda is the 1 Timothy 3:16 caper, which is supported by "zero" Greek manuscripts (write us for details on this). Another is the Isaiah 7:14 corruption (in the Standard Version, RSV & NRSV) where they translate "almah" to mean young woman instead of "virgin". This is in complete opposition, not only to its obvious meaning (virgin) here in Isaiah, but in opposition to the Greek word the Jewish translators used in their Greek Septuagint translation in 300 B.C. (Greek word "parthenos" only means: virgin). Besides this, the Apostles who knew Hebrew well, used the exact Greek word for virgin when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in their Gospels. So, it is not surprising to see these "leaders" also removing all of the Apocrypha from the KJV in 1769.

Why aren't we now concerned about the fact that our Bibles are missing the Apocrypha, if this was done this way? Because it was natural that later, "all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the" Bible containing the Apocrypha. Consequently, everything was in place for this "new" generation of Christians (and all succeeding ones) to make the false assumption that the Apocrypha was never in the Bible, nor was it received as Scripture. After all, this subject is generally never talked about, but is assumed to be a "closed case".

Nevertheless, isn't this a foregone conclusion that we were taught to assume from the first time we started to come into a knowledge of the Bible? Then I ask: How can we "objectively" decide this matter, without a deep investigation, since we have lived for so long under a false assumption?



Using the same "Standards/Rule" to judge this question
Fourth Stage Conclusions

So far it has been established that:

A) man can "hinder" God's perfect will, and
B) God "does" preserve His Word, but
C) it "is" possible for man to corrupt God's Holy Word in various circles, so
D) there are "no guarantees" that every Bible we pick up contains God's pure Word. We must be careful to "know" from what source it comes.
E) the Early Church did "indeed" quote the Apocrypha as Scripture, contrary to what we've been told.
F) We have been duped by wolves into believing that our more recent "protestant" Bible translations, done by their scholars, are the infallible and the complete Word of God, when in fact, documented corruptions and omissions have indeed taken place.



Conclusions about the Apocrypha
Now given this foundation on which to "judge" righteously the questions coming my way about Bibles and what are contained in them, let us proceed.



Some background
I held the opinion for most of my Christian life (even when training as a pastor) that the Apocrypha was "fictitious", and as such, was removed from the Bible many hundreds of years ago so as not to be confused with "real" Scripture. I had heard (and blindly believed) the reasons given for it only being in the Roman Catholic Bibles, but none others. However lately, the more I realized that these are the last days and that many are trying to deceive us, I began to seriously "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" on many issues. It was amazing what things turned out to be doctrines and commandments of men, who "by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".

The question of the Apocrypha was (& still is) not a life and death deal to me. However, it was important to me to know whether or not it is Scripture.

1) One day I discovered that all of the Bibles brought here by Russian Christian immigrants included the Apocrypha in them "as Scripture". I also found the same true for the Bibles used by the Greek and Russian Orthodox Church. This went directly against the common protestant story that "only" the Catholic Church uses the Apocrypha as Scripture.

2) I had already discovered, around the same time (to my surprise), that the 1611 KJV and all earlier "Protestant only" Bibles included the Apocrypha as Scripture as well. This also went against what I had been led to believe up until this point. It's kind of like finding out, after many years, that the person you were told was only your aunt is really your real mother.

3) I "also" hadn't realized that the Apocrypha had been removed so recently (in 1769). This means that not only did the reformers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli) have the Apocrypha in their Bibles, but that all Christians had it for almost 1700 years after Christ. Even Calvin helped translate the Geneva Bible of 1560 which includes the Apocrypha and his marginal notes. We've had a copy of the Geneva Bible for years and this can plainly be seen.

4) I have recently discovered that even to this day, all Amish and Hutterite German Bibles (translated by Martin Luther) "have always" contained the Apocrypha. The most recent "1970" printing still contains the Apocrypha complete with cross references back and forth to the Old and New Testament. This German Bible is still in print today and is Titled: "Die Heiligen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach Dr. Martin Luther Vebersetzung".

However, after all this, I was awakened; I was curious, but I was still not sure what to believe. So, I continued to make a "laid back" investigation into the reasons why the Apocrypha was removed. This writing is my first attempt at explaining what I've found and what I've found is not very pretty. My research was an eye-opener to me.



General Observations on
Reasons Given Why the Apocrypha was Removed
I started reading the comments of those who gave the reasons for the Apocrypha's removal. Many of these "reasons" are available on the internet. Almost without exception, none had any provable arguments for what they said. They all stated "why" it had been removed like some sort of edict passed down from some "higher" more learned authority in the past, but without giving real proof or substantial facts for what they said (only conclusions built upon suppositions). It seemed as though they were blindly regurgitating some "long standing" edicts. However, I wanted real facts, not some statements restating someone else's conclusions. Therefore, I could see that I had to do my own research.



Specific Observations on
Reasons Given Why the Apocrypha was Removed
In reading the "stated" reasons for the Apocrypha's removal, most applied the standard critic's illogic on them. By this I mean: by speculating on when the Apocrypha "may" have been written, because most of the Apocrypha's manuscripts (I'm told) are found only in Greek, this would make them later than Malachi and therefore, "non-Scripture". Circular reasoning is then used to "judge" whether they are Scripture or not, totally ignoring the fact that those who would "know"; those who had the tedious job of making no "mistakes" concerning what was to be the Church's Scripture (i.e. - the early Church and the deciding council of 397) used no such criteria.

Here's how they analyze:

If they can theorize that the Apocrypha was written after the close of the O.T. canon, then it must not be Scripture. Because it is not Scripture, it must not have been written during the time it talks about, therefore it must be made up of forgeries written after the close of the O.T.

There is nothing logical nor provable in this line of reasoning. However, this is a "simplified" view of how the Apocrypha is reasoned away.

The Apocrypha is said to only appear in "Greek manuscript" form. Somehow this (if it is even true) is supposed to prove that it is of more "recent" origin than the O.T. books, hence the Apocrypha must be false, forgeries, fictitious. What it being found in Greek only has to do with it being Scripture or not, I have no idea. To me the important thing is whether or not the Apocrypha is inspired or not, not whether it passes some man made criteria.



Making the Grade
1) If one of the criteria for judging the Apocrypha's genuineness is:

A) whether or not it was written by the same person the story or testimony is about, or
B) whether or not it was written by someone who was "there" to witness the events or testimony, then let us apply this same criteria to the O.T. as well. Using this same test on the O.T., how can we accept the book of Genesis which was written by Moses hundreds of years after the stories it contains occurred? Think about it.

2) "Another" interesting point to this whole scene is that if these Apocrypha books are only fabrications and forgeries, how can the critics of the Apocrypha even say that they are "worth reading for their historical or moral value"? How could anyone "want" to read such fabrications and forgeries?

3) But I ask: how is it that the early Church could have completely missed out on "seeing" the spuriousness of the Apocrypha and not throw them all out as they did many good, but "borderline" books? The fact is, the early Church was much closer to the times of the Apocrypha's events and would have known more than we do about its reliability. However they are found "actually" quoting the Apocrypha "as Scripture" over 352 times. This is reality. Besides, these are our brethren who endured persecution worse than most of us have ever conceived of. (Reference: Scripture Index, Vol. X, Ante-Nicene Fathers set)

The Bottom Line is this:
The fact that it is "so easy" to verify that the early Church regarded the Apocrypha as Scripture defeats any argument to the contrary. I don't know how any "honest" Christian who really wants the "real" truth can get past this, but this is only the beginning.



Fifth Stage Conclusions

So far it has been established that:

A) man can "hinder" God's perfect will, and
B) God "does" preserve His Word, but
C) it "is" possible for man to corrupt God's Holy Word in various circles, so
D) there are "no guarantees" that every Bible we pick up contains God's pure Word. We must be careful to "know" from what source it comes.
E) the Early Church did "indeed" quote the Apocrypha as Scripture, contrary to what we've been told.
F) We have been duped by wolves into believing that our more recent "protestant" Bible translations, done by their scholars, are the infallible and the complete Word of God, when in fact, documented corruptions and omissions have indeed taken place.
G) modern critics against the Apocrypha use "double standards" (i.e.- one to determine the O.T.'s genuineness and different/illogical ones on the Apocrypha that the O.T. could never pass either).



Whose on Trial?
The truth of the matter is that such arguments hold little water in light of the fact that the Apocrypha's Scripture is not on trial; Scripture is "never" on trial; those who would prove it to be false "are" the ones on trial. The burden of proof against the Apocrypha rests on them, not the other way around. Needless to say, I did not expect it to be so easy to "see through" their arguments against it.



Using the Same Standards
We all know that it is hypocrisy to use one "rule" for judging some people/things that we are fond of and then changing the rule and using another one for "other" people/things we don't care for.



The Criteria
Here is the exact criteria used by those who would eliminate the Apocrypha from our Bibles:

1) The Apocrypha gives places and timing whereby it would "seem" to be impossible for it to be that way, based on actual history.

2) There are books that have accounts of people's actions that although they are supposed to be Godly people, they practice wrong doctrine.

3) The Jews during the time of Christianity's infancy supposedly came out against the canonizing of the Apocrypha in their own Scriptures.

4) Some of the reformers did not regard some of the Apocrypha as Scripture.

5) Our Bibles do not "quote" anything from the Apocrypha.



Analyzing their Criteria
Let's look at #1: The Apocrypha gives places and timing whereby it would "seem" to be impossible for it to be that way, based on actual history.

A) We know that the genealogy in Matthew is different from that of Luke (Matt. 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38). Also there is some question about how Judas hanged himself in the Gospels (Matt. 27:5), but in Acts 1:18 he was said to have died "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out". However, because these are "accepted" Scriptures, only a liberal would dare to question such differences. Therefore the Church spent its time straightening out "our" understanding of these facts (which is the right approach), so that when the Bible says things that "seemingly" contradict each other, "we" will understand what the Bible means God's way.

However, when the same type of question comes up concerning the book of Tobit, without really looking into it, it is "assumed" the book of Tobit is false. Here's an example. One writer (Didaskalos ministries) says: "Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1.3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing. Yet Tobit 14.11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. To me, that's a big error".

Ans: I've read the parts cited, and by "assuming" that Tobit is correct at the outset, I can certainly see that Tobit is either talking about "his" tribe succeeding from Judah in the past or the way it is "assumed" to be above. Let us apply this same "test" to the Bible.

It is not uncommon for the Bible to state things in the present tense, or recent past when it means many years later or before. Example is: Acts 2:30 David "...knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne". If we didn't know better, we could assume that Christ would sit on David's throne before the nation Israel was destroyed.

In Genesis 15:18 it says, "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates". Again, from the Hebrew word for "seed" here (meaning: children, posterity), it would seem that Abraham's son or grandson would soon inherit the land, but they didn't. If this Scripture was subjected to the same criteria laid on Tobit (as stated previously), Genesis would be in "big" trouble.

In Revelation 22:7, 12, 20, the Lord says, "I come quickly". Reading this, one could think that soon after Apostle John died, Jesus was due back. So again this Scripture would not pass the test given Tobit. The fact is, some did think Jesus "had' already returned and Apostle Paul had to write the Thessalonians, about not taking such things literally (2Thess. 2:2).

In Revelation 1:1, Jesus tells us about things that, "must shortly come to pass". Notice that Jesus says, "shortly come to pass". However, it has been almost 2,000 years since then and we see many of them coming to life "now". "What are we to do with the book of Revelation? According to our friend's criteria applied to Tobit, we would also have to say, "To me, that's a big error", and throw the whole book out, along with Genesis.

Nevertheless, we know the Bible is a spiritual book. In other words, it can only be understood with the help and teaching of the Holy Spirit of God; no other way. If Tobit is Scripture, the same test goes for it as well. Even Tobit uses figurative language in chapter 1:7 by saying, "The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron". It would "seem" like he was saying that he lived at the same time as the "actual" sons of Aaron, but we know he means their descendants.

However, 2 different standards are applied these days: one to the Bible; another to the Apocrypha. The books "now" in our Bible are given the benefit of the doubt to start with; but the Apocrypha is looked on with suspicion (I know, because I used to look down my nose at it too, without even knowing the facts). What the critics have done is called hypocrisy, brethren.



B) This critic goes on to say, "Tobit 14.5 declares that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically never happened. ...Tobit cannot be Scriptural."

Ans: I have to say that I looked up Tobit 14:5, but found nothing close (a typo on this critic's part, I'm sure). I read on down to verse 15 and found, "the destruction of Nineve, which was taken by Nabuchodonosor", which sounds like Nebuchadnezzar, but this isn't the same person. Nabuchodonosor was a ruler who lived during Judith's life time (see book of Judith). So based on a mistaken identity (Nabuchodonosor assumed to be Nebuchadnezzar) and an ignorance of history and Scripture, these critics are "making the word of God (Tobit in this case) of none effect through" their "tradition".



Let's look at #2: There are books that have accounts of people's actions that although they are supposed to be Godly people, they practice immoral actions or heretical doctrine.

I decided to use the same criteria, that the critics used on the Apocrypha, on our protestant Bible. Based on the same criteria, the following books (I'll put in parenthesis), which do not offer any judgement against the immoral or heretical actions they contain, should be removed from our Bibles for the following reasons::

A) Abraham lied to Abimelech and Pharaoh (Genesis)
B) King Saul had the priests of God killed by Doeg the Edomite (1 Samuel)
C) Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God (Judges)
D) Levite has a concubine (Judges) as well as King David (1, 2 Samuel and Chronicles)
E) Levite gives his concubine to men of the city to abuse her (Judges)
F) Tamar plays a harlot and Judah gets her pregnant (Genesis)
G) Lot gets his daughters pregnant (Genesis)
H) Peter cuts off the high priest's servant's ear (Gospels): Jesus says "Suffer ye thus far" in Luke. (Luke)
I) Judas kills himself (Matthew and Acts)
J) Paul mentions baptizing for the dead (1 Corth. 15)

Other Objections in the Apocrypha


Because the book of Maccabees gives a historical account of people practicing error (woman kills herself for God, prayers are made for the dead) without making any moral judgement concerning them, is this a valid reason for their removal? Evidently the early Church didn't think so. They must have used a different criteria: i.e.- maybe, by the Holy Ghost, they knew the Apocrypha was inspired "by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". Therefore, I must ask: have we become so much wiser than they in the last 230 years (since the year 1769)?

I also found where someone accused the Apocrypha's book called Wisdom 7:25 of being used to help prove a gnostic heresy was true. Quoting Wisdom 7:25, (note: the subject is "wisdom" from verse 24): "For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her." I read it and it is true that one who is seeking to prove such a gnostic heresy "could" conjure up a "slight" agreement from this verse. However, are these good reasons for removing the Apocrypha Bible books?

I ask: is it not a known fact that, by using what we already have in the Bible today, many "that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2Peter 3:16)? I know that the Biblical books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are often used to prove "New Age" philosophy. So those who would conjure up some false belief from Scripture have simply not "gone away" with the removal of the Apocrypha.



Let's look at #3: The Jews during the time of Christianity's infancy supposedly came out against the canonizing of the Apocrypha into their own writings.

Of course one reason argued against the Apocrypha's canonization is the "story" that the Jews never regarded it as Scripture. This one is very hard to prove either way. In my research, I can not find any such council. Neither can I find much more than the "normal" attacks against an infant Christendom by the Jews, whereby they used whatever means they could to discredit Christianity's actions, beliefs and scriptures. It is true that they were "upset" with the fact that the Christians were using their Greek O.T. (Torah) as a basis for their faith.

But I ask, is what the Jews (supposedly) decided about the Apocrypha a "standard" for us Christians? Bear in mind, that even if there were such a council, such a decision would be highly suspicious. In light of the fact that the Jews, to this very day, make their commentaries of greater or equal authority with Scripture, such a decision would not only be nonsense, but highly hypocritical as well.



Let's look at #4: Some of the reformers did not regard some of its books as Scripture.

Who are the reformers that we should take out books they didn't like? Who had this opinion? When it comes to the Apocrypha being "accepted" into the canon of Scripture, we are not talking about a Roman Catholic "abuse" here. Instead we are talking about the fact that all of our Church leaders and brethren from the time of the Apostles till the councils in the late 4th century simply "approved" the Apocrypha's long standing scriptural position.

I've only heard that Luther said something against some of the Apocrypha's books. However, it is also a well known fact that Luther wanted the book of James removed from our N.T. as well, which he called "a straw epistle". Calvin certainly accepted the Apocrypha as he even added commentary to it in the margins of the Geneva Bible he helped translate.

In the end all I can say is that I've read the Apocrypha and find it very scriptural. I've heard that purgatory is somehow derived from it, but I have never seen it there. Yes, I can see how Maccabees could be "twisted" to somehow say it, but only in the same way that evolutionists can build an entire skull using one tooth from a supposed pre-evolved man. The fact that in Maccabees they "did" pray for the dead (one time) would take the mind of the flesh's "tooth" to build a "purgatory".



Let's look at #5: Our Bibles do not "quote" any of the Apocrypha.

This evidence is based on an artificially created situation. Before the Apocrypha was removed, this was certainly not the case. It was only "after the fact" that it became true.

It is like this: going out to close up and tear down a popular store, then waiting for that entire generation of shoppers to die off. Then it's like saying later on: "because no one talks about shopping there anymore, it must not have been important for them in the first place", to prove how unimportant the store must have been in the first place and why it was needful to tear it down.

This is perfect "circular reasoning" (I call it "plastic" thinking). Of course the store isn't part of anyone's conversation anymore. No one knows that the store even existed. They don't even know what they are missing, so why would they talk about it or wish for it back?

This same reasoning is applied to the Apocrypha in this way:

1) One day (1769 A.D.), our "learned" leaders took the Apocrypha out of our Bibles.
2) After that, all new Bibles did not include the Apocrypha.
3) Because of it being taken "out", it was not necessary to include any cross references to it anymore.
4) Therefore, we can conclude this: because there are no "known" quotes or references to the Apocrypha in our Bibles, the Apocrypha must not be Scripture.

We have a 1560 Geneva Bible. It has the Apocrypha (as did the Bishop's and KJV Bibles) which contains marginal notes in their margins. It also contains cross references from and to the Apocrypha. The fact is, the N.T. does quote the Apocrypha more than we realize, but how would we know? The only way to know is to go back to a time when they had the Apocrypha and see if the rest of the Bible references any quotes to the Apocrypha. If it does (and it did), then we can see that we've had a "fast one" pulled on us.

I also discovered that the German Bibles still in use amongst the Amish, contain the Apocrypha. I also noticed that the Apocrypha is cross referenced to the New and Old Testaments and visa versa. So much for the argument that the Apocrypha is not mentioned in the rest of the Bible.

blessings,
Theophorus

1- Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1,
2- Westcott and Hort published their 2 volume "The New Testament in the Original Greek".

Tweet