|
|
|
APOLOGETICS |
|
The Apocrypha and
the Biblical Canon - Part 2
By Dr. John
Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon |
|
Unfortunately, someone who reads only casually on the subject may
easily be misled and conclude that the early church accepted the
Apocrypha as Scripture and that the modern church is confused on the
issue. Neither conclusion would be true. Consider the kinds of
statements one may find in various sources. "Down to the 4th
century the church generally accepted all the books of the Septuagint
as canonical…"; 1
or, "the church of the first centuries made no essential difference
between the writings of the Hebrew canon and the so-called Apocrypha."2
Even church historian J. N. D. Kelly, author of Early Christian
Doctrines and Early Christian Creeds, comments,
incorrectly, that, "For the great majority [of early fathers]...the
deuterocanonical writings [the apocrypha] ranked as Scripture in the
fullest sense." 3
Citing statements such as this, former evangelical turned Roman
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote us at The John Ankerberg
Show in defense of Catholic views generally. He began by quoting
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which declared,
as we just quoted,
Down to the 4 th
century, the Church generally accepted all the books of the
Septuagint as canonical. Greek and Latin writers alike (e.g.,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without
distinction…. With few exceptions [St. Jerome and St. Hilary]….
Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as
equally canonical…. At the Reformation, Protestant leaders, ignoring
the traditional acceptance of all the Books of the Septuagint in the
early church… refused the status of inspired Scripture [to the
Apocrypha]…"
But what The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also
stated about the Apocrypha is this:
The Biblical Books received by the early Church as part of the
Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew
Bible, being excluded by the non-Hellenistic Jews from their Canon.
Their position in Christian usage has been somewhat ambiguous…. In
the E. Church opinion varied, and for some centuries the Books
continued to be widely accepted; but at the Synod of Jerusalem in
1672 it was decided that Tobit, Judith, Ecclus., and Wisd. alone
were to be regarded as canonical. Opinion in the W. was also not
unanimous, some authorities considering certain books uncanonical;… 4
This gives us a somewhat different picture of things. Note that the
non-Hellenistic Jews, who determined their Old Testament canon,
rejected the Apocrypha. We must also observe that there is no
evidence that the Hellenistic or Alexandrian Jews regarded the
Apocrypha as Scripture, despite their preservation of it in the
Septuagint [LXX]. It is crucial to note that the Jews themselves never
accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture and yet they were the very ones
trained to recognize divine authorship. They had carefully done so
with 39 other books, rejecting as spurious scores of false texts. Why
then did they reject the Apocrypha if it was so clearly scriptural?
Perhaps then, some in the early church were wrong and the issue is not
as clear as others would have us think.
In his letter, Mr. Armstrong proceeded with the following argument
in defense of the Apocrypha:
As for the Apostles and Jesus, everyone agrees that they used and
cited the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha. The earliest
Greek manuscripts contain the Apocryphal books interspersed with
(not separate from) the others, proving they were part of the early
Christian Bible. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
listed the Apocrypha as canonical, along with the other 39 that
Protestants accept. Who are Protestants to decide 1100 years later
that these Councils erred on some books but not others? The only
reason you have the Bible you do is because you inconsistently
accept the authority of these Councils as to the Canon (except for
the Apocrypha). The late Protestant rejection of these books is
largely based on inadequate and arbitrary grounds, as usual: the
clear teaching in some of prayers for the dead and the intercession
of saints and angels, which had been unbroken Christian (and Jewish)
Tradition. This is the same rationale that caused Luther nearly to
toss out James and other books, based on his personal aversion to
their (Catholic) teachings. Thus, P’s have "subtracted" from the
Bible, rather than C’s "adding" to it. Yours is the radical and
novel innovation (i.e., corruption) not ours. The practice of
separating the Apocryphal books from the others dates back no
further than 1520, according to The New English Bible
(Oxford, 1976, "Introduction to the Apocrypha," p. iii). And, of
course, the original KJV contained it, too. So, again, you are
refuted entirely from Protestant sources and the indisputable facts
of church history. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. 5
Mr. Armstrong has, unfortunately, as many Catholic apologists do,
oversimplified the issues and failed to answer the real questions. For
example, the mere fact that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint
says nothing about the canonical status of the Apocrypha. Certainly,
they used Hebrew Manuscripts or compilations that did not contain the
Apocrypha as well. Also, what proof exists that the Septuagint of the
first century contained the Apocrypha? Does the fact that apocryphal
books were included in some Greek manuscripts prove the early church
considered them Scripture? Are the decrees of all church councils
infallible? Is it really the Protestants who removed Scripture or have
Catholics decreed noncanonical writings into Scripture? And is the
Protestant view "refuted entirely from Protestant sources and the
indisputable facts of church history" so that Protestants should be
ashamed of what they have done? Or is Mr. Armstrong just being a good
Catholic apologist? Let’s see just where "the facts of church history"
take us. Before we proceed, let us supply a few pertinent questions
and comments to introduce our subject. We will then return to these
points and others in more detail.
First, how can the Apocrypha possibly be considered God’s Word when
everyone, Protestant and Catholic, agree it contains demonstrable
errors? This thoroughly undermines the crucial doctrines of divine
inspiration and inerrancy. To our way of thinking, this single fact
alone forever disqualifies the Apocrypha from canonical status.
Second, the argument from tradition, which Catholics rely so
heavily upon, is irrelevant. The councils or statements of church
tradition are not inerrant, nor are they to be placed in the same
category as Scripture, despite Catholic claims. Indeed, it would
hardly matter if every church father, council, etc., officially
declared the Apocrypha was Scripture—because, again, what proves the
claim to divine inspiration of the Apocrypha false is the presence of
errors.
Third, the mere fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the
Septuagint cannot prove the inspiration of the Apocrypha; again, we
have no proof that the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint that Jesus and
the Apostles used. Assuming it contained these writings, the real
issue is what Jesus and the Apostles believed about the
Apocrypha. As we will see, they did not view it as Scripture.
Fourth, while some in the early church accepted the Apocrypha,
others did not. And those who accepted it had different views. The
Encyclopedia Britannica also comments:
There seems to have been no unanimity as to their exact canonical
status. The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books
directly…. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1 st-early
2nd
centuries) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a
list of the Old Testament books by Melito [2nd
century]… does not include the additional writings of the Greek
Bible, and Origen… [it] explicitly describes the Old Testament canon
as comprising only 22 books.[i.e., the 39 Old Testament books in
Protestant Bibles today; the Jews had a different classification
system such that our current Old Testament was divided into 22 or 24
books.] From the time of Origen on, the Church Fathers who were
familiar with Hebrew differentiated, theoretically at least, the
Apocryphal books from those of the Old Testament, though they used
them freely….6
It is important to realize that there was a theological method and
historical process for recognizing which books were inspired and which
were not. By the time the full Canon was universally recognized, the
Apocrypha was not considered part of Scripture. As noted Old
Testament scholar R. K. Harrison correctly points out, then, these
"books at best do no more than hover on the fringe of
canonicity"—and we note, that’s "at best." 7
To argue that the Apocrypha was accepted implicitly or explicitly
by the church as Scripture up until the time of the Protestant
Reformation and then thrown out by the Reformers, for whatever reason,
is not true. It was very carefully reasoned arguments, based on full
and complete trust in our 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, that
forced the church to reject the Apocrypha.
Unfortunately, it is the Catholics who refuse to look objectively
at the facts of church history and the logical implications of the
content of the Apocrypha. Again, if the Apocrypha contains errors and
doctrines that deny biblical teaching, how can it possibly be
inspired by God? The illogic of the Catholic Church on this point is
the fault of the Catholic Church, not the canon of Scripture. To argue
that Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is "based on inadequate and
arbitrary grounds" is simply false.
Finally, the fact that Bibles such as the Septuagint and the King
James Version included the Apocrypha as relevant historical materials
says no more about their inspired status than the inclusion of
historical introductions in modern study Bibles says about their
inspired status. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce supplies several
examples of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in different Bibles—but
these Bibles also observe that the Apocrypha was not to be
considered Scripture. 8
In essence, the fact that some in the early church accepted the
Apocrypha, that some books were included in some canonical lists and
manuscripts, that the Catholic church officially declared it Scripture
in the mid 1500’s or that many Protestant versions contained the
Apocrypha are still not proof that the Apocrypha was divinely
inspired.
Now let’s look at these and other subjects in more detail. We will
show why it is impossible for any thinking person committed to the
full authority and inerrancy of Scripture to regard the Apocrypha as
the Word of God.
1) The Meaning of the Term Apocrypha
First, what is the meaning of the term Apocrypha? Old Testament
scholar R. K. Harrison supplies the background of the word, pointing
out the term was used in the early church of writings withheld
from general circulation due to doubts concerning their nature or
value:
The term itself is the neuter plural of the Greek word
apokruphos meaning "concealed" or "hidden." Applied to literary
productions it designates those compositions intended to be kept
from the profane gaze of the public because of the esoteric wisdom
which they contained. Thus a magical book attributed to Moses, which
may be as early as the 1 st
century of the Christian era, was designated by this term…. However,
in the early Christian era the term came to be applied to writings
that were withheld from general circulation owing to doubts either
about their authenticity or their general value for faith and
practice. From the time of Origen [ca. 185-254] an even more
unfavorable sense of the word "Apocryphal" interpreted it as
describing that which was false, spurious, or heretical. Thus
according to the approach of the particular individual concerned,
the term could have either an honorable or a derogatory sense, and
could designate writings not included as well as books deliberately
excluded from the Scriptural canon.9
In the early church the term Apocrypha could thus also refer to
what we today call the pseudepigraphal books—those clearly containing
false statements or which were heretical. This is one reason the
Catholic Church uses a different term, "deuterocanonical" (lit.
"second canon"), for these books, while Protestants have largely
retained the term Apocrypha. However, those in the early church who
rejected the Apocrypha as canonical did not necessarily reject the
Apocrypha as a whole. In the case of some of these books having
homiletic or historical value they accepted these and they believed
they could be read in the church for edification or instruction. Other
apocryphal books were simply rejected as spurious or heretical.
2) The Historical Value of the Apocrypha
Thus, we can recognize the historical value in the Apocrypha
without conceding its inspiration or canonicity. As a collection of
books, they offer valid insights into the times in which they were
written. Dr. Harrison again points out that one reason that many (not
all) of these books were considered valuable is "because they mirror
with considerable accuracy the religious, political and social
conditions in Judaea following the close of the Old Testament period
proper" and that "they are an important and lasting record of men and
nations in conflict over political, moral and spiritual values, and as
such their message transcends the boundaries of their own day." 10
In this sense certain of the apocryphal books may give us useful
historic and cultural information of the period in which they were
written. But this is a far cry from constituting divine inspiration.
(to be continued)
Notes:
1 The Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church, p. 70.
2 The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 1, p. 214.
3 In Norman L. Geisler, Ralph
MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and
Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), p. 162.
4 The Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church, pp. 70-71.
5 Letter of Dave Armstrong to
John Weldon, August 20, 1995.
6 The Encyclopedia
Britannica, qv. "Biblical Literature," Macropaedia, Vol. 2, p.
883.
7 R. K. Harrison, An
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1974), p. 1193, emphasis added.
8 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of
Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 101ff.
9 Harrison, p. 1185; Greek
term transliterated.
10 Ibid., pp. 1175, 1193.
|
Apologetics
Authors
Dr.
James Bjornstad
Mrs. Lorri MacGregor
Mr. Marvin Cowan
Dr. John Ankerberg
Dr. John Weldon |
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"
CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
HARRY POTTER
SUPPORT RESOURCES
Confused about Harry Potter?
CLICK
GO
FOR SUPPORT RESOURCES
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS
Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?
Facing Financial Facts -
How to Kill the Debt Monster
AUTHOR:
Riser, Dr. Steven C.
For an increasing number of people, debt is becoming a real monster. The fear and dread that comes from debt is just as real as a predator in the home. So how can you dispatch the debt
monster?
The Coalition of Nations
in Daniel 11
AUTHORS:
DeYoung, Dr. Jimmy
One of the major trends for the last days is a coalition of nations that will come against Israel. Dr. Jimmy DeYoung describes those nations and what brings them together.
|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|
