The Apocrypha Exposed

8/2/2019 The Apocrypha Exposed

1/16

The Apocrypha Exposed!

"It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in

this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubtmight arise in the mind of someone as to which arethe books received by this council.[4]

"They are the following: of the Old Testament, thefive books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges,Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, thelatter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith,Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms,Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles,Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, withBaruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minorProphets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas,Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus,Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees,the first and second. Of the New Testament, thefour Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Lukeand John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Lukethe Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul theApostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, tothe Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians,

to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two toTimothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews;two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle,one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle,and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical

Page 1 of 16The Apocrypha Exposed!

2/8/2012http://www. esus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc16-apocryph...


2/16

the aforesaid books in their entirety and with alltheir parts, as they have been accustomed to beread in the Catholic Church and as they arecontained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, andknowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaidtraditions, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, 4th Session, April 8, 1546, "DecreeConcerning the Canonical Scriptures")

With these words, the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripturefinally was set, more than 1,200 years after the Roman

bishops, with the backing of Constantine, arrogated tothemselves authority over all the Christian church. This wasthe first council in the history of the Western Church toofficially define the Canon of Scripture.

In support of the inclusion of 12 books of the Apocrypha in thecanon, Trent pointed to two regional councils which met under Augustine's leadership in Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397A.D.). The bishops of Trent claimed these councils formallydefined the canon as including the Apocrypha.

There are a couple of things wrong with this claim: 1) thesewere regional councils not authorized to speak for the churchas a whole; and 2) the endorsement they gave the Apocryphawas quite different from what the RCC claims a matter Ishall deal with later.

The claims of Trent ignore the very significant fact that therewas an established canon of Scripture long before anyone metin church council at Hippo or Carthage. There is a strong bodyof evidence that the Old Testament canon found in theChristian Bible (non-Catholic) is the same as that used inPalestine at the time of Christ's ministry. That canon did not




3/16

include the Apocrypha. Christ referred to Scriptures in Luke24:44:

"And he said unto them, These are the wordswhich I spake unto you, while I was yet with you,that all things must be fulfilled, which were writtenin the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in thepsalms, concerning me."

Neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever oncequoted from the Apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370references to the Old Testament in the New Testament and notone of them refers to the Apocrypha

The RCC herself acknowledges that the Jews did not acceptthe Apocrypha, for it was not a part of the Hebrew canon. Arespected Catholic source informs:

"For the Old Testament, however, Protestantsfollow the Jewish canon; they have only the OldTestament books that are in the HebrewBible." ("New Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. II,'Canon, Biblical' (Washington D.C.: CatholicUniversity, 1967), p. 29)

What about the Jewish canon? How was it developed? Jews believed that God reveals His will to and through inspired people. Essentially, they accepted three means for receivingdivine revelation:

"Then said they, Come, and let us devise devicesagainst Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish fromthe priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the wordfrom the prophet" (Jeremiah 18:18)




4/16

Priests learned the will of God through the Urim andThummin, which were sacred objects carried inside the

breastplate of the high priest. These were used as oracular media to divine the will of God.

God Himself disclosed to Moses the means of sanctificationand atonement. These became the means of sustaining thedivine-human relationship.

The prophets, or wise men, were God's spokesmen. The wordsthey spoke were God's words. The sayings and writings of the

prophets were preserved (Isaiah 8:16, Jeremiah 36), andwidely circulated in ancient times. Sometime between the 4thand 2nd Centuries B.C., the prophetic canon seems to have

been firmed into two groupings. Among the Former Prophetswere included the books of Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2Kings. The Latter Prophets were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel andThe Twelve.

The Hagiographa, or Writings, was a mixed collection thatincluded the Psalms and other documents in common use. TheJews had a difficult time with the Hagiographa, because thefluidity of the 'canon' complicated their efforts to standardizethe authoritative Scriptures.

The Samaritan canon consisted of the Torah, without either prophetic or hagiographic scriptures. The Samaritan Torahdiffered from the Jewish version in several places.

When the Roman army leveled the Temple, in 70 A.D., Jewishreligious practice was upended. Their system of sacrificialritual ended with the destruction of the Temple. From then on,Judaism would have to rest on the Scriptures. And this

presented yet another issue. If the Scriptures were to be the




5/16

rule of faith for Jews, then it was absolutely essential that theauthoritative writings be identified. In 90 A.D. Jewish leadersmet in Jamnia to identify and fix the Jewish canon. It wascommonly believed that Ezra's time marked the end of divineinspiration, so there was no reason to not close the canon.There was a lot of questionable religious material incirculation during that time. The Jewish religious leaders wereconcerned that less informed Jews might use some of thisquestionable material or, worse yet, begin to use the Christianwritings in matters of faith. They also were concerned to keepthe authoritative texts free of scribal error, and it would first be

necessary to establish an official canon in order that it be preserved.

"The principles guiding the rabbis in the selectionof sacred books have not come down to us in anyclear-cut delineation but appear to have includedthe following:

"1.The writing had to be composed in Hebrew. Theonly exceptions, which were written in Aramaic,were Daniel 2-7, writings attributed to Ezra (Ezra4:8-6:18; 7:12-26), who was recognized as thefounding father of post-Exilic Judaism, and Jer.10:11. Hebrew was the language of SacredScripture, Aramaic the language of commonspeech.

"2.The writing had to be sanctioned by usage in theJewish community. The use of Esther at Purimmade it possible for it to be included in the canon.Judith, without such support, was not acceptable.

"3.The writings had to contain one of the great




6/16

religious themes of Judaism, such as election, orthe covenant. By reclassifying the Song of Songs asan allegory, it was possible to see in this book anexpression of covenantal love.

"4.The writing had to be composed before the timeof Ezra, for it was popularly believed thatinspiration had ceased then. Jonah was acceptedbecause it used the name of an early prophet anddealt with events before the destruction of Nineveh,which occurred in 612. Daniel, a pseudonymouswriting, had its setting in the Exile and thereforewas accepted as an Exilic document." (Gerald A.Larue, "Old Testament Life and Literature", AllynAnd Bacon (1968, 1997), electronic version 1997by Internet Infidels).

Josephus, the 1st Century Jewish historian so often cited byRomish apologists, was quite explicit that the Hebrew canonincluded 22 books, none of which were apocryphal (Wm.Whiston, Trans., "Josephus," (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1960),"Against Apion" 1.8, p. 609)

There are those who would argue that the Septuagent didinclude the Apocrypha and suggest there were actually twoHebrew canons: a Palestinian one without the Apocrypha andan Alexandrian one which did include them. This isinappropriate, however, for there is no Alexandrian canon. TheJews of Alexandria never officially canonized the LXX.Catholics like to use the term when referring to the Jewishcanon, or Tanakh, in combination with the Apocrypha.

And what support is there for the claim the originalSeptuagent, which was translated some six centuries before the




7/16

copies now on hand, did not include the Apocrypha? Well, for one thing, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (where theSeptuagent was translated), did not include the Apocrypha as

part of the Old Testament canon. In a letter, Athanasius listedthe 22 Old Testament books and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. He added:

"These are the fountains of salvation, that theywho thirst may be satisfied with the living wordsthey contain. In these ALONE (my emphasis) isproclaimed the doctrine of godliness." (Philip

Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers," Second Series, vol. IV, St. Athanasius,"Letter 39.6" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953), p.552)

Cyril of Jerusalem (b. ca. 315 A.D.) was so respected by his bishop, 'Saint' Maximus that he was given charge of theinstruction of catechumens. Cyril catalogued the canonical Old

Testament books. His list did not include the Apocrypha.(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers," Vol VII, Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures"IV.33-36 (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 26-28)

The earliest list of the Old Testament canon that we have froma Christian writer was provided by Melito of Sardis, who diedabout 180 A.D. Melito, whose writings are preserved by

Eusebius, went to Palestine to see for himself exactly howmany books were in the Hebrew canon. He lists 22 books,which concurs with the number given by Josephus. (PhilipSchaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,"Second Series, vol. I, Eusebius, "Church History" IV.26.13-14(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1952), p. 206)




8/16

Origen also lists 22 books, none of which are apocryphal, inthe Hebrew canon. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Niceneand Post-Nicene Fathers," Second Series, vol. I, Eusebius,"Church History" VI.25.1-2 (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1952),

p. 272)

Others of the Early Church Fathers who agreed with Josephusand Origen as to the composition of the 22-book Hebrewcanon, omitting the Apocrypha were: Epiphanius, Basil theGreat, Gregory of Nazianzen and Hilary of Poitiers.

But Rome tells us the Apocrypha are canonical, this was'infallibly' declared by the Council of Trent. What did some of those Early Church Fathers the RCC so loves to refer to haveto say about these books?

Athanasius clearly declared the canonical Scriptures alonewere to be used for determining doctrine, while the apocryphawere sanctioned for reading only, but were not considered partof the canon. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene andPost-Nicene Fathers," Second Series, vol. IV, St. Athanasius,"Letter 39.7" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953), p. 552)

Jerome certainly agreed with Athanasius, for he did notinclude the Apocrypha in his Latin translations of the OldTestament because, he said, they were not part of the Hebrewcanon. He admitted the Apocrypha were useful, but notauthoritative for declaring or confirming doctrine. In acommentary on two apocryphal books, The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome wrote:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and thebooks of the Maccabees, but does not admit themamong the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read




9/16

these two volumes for the edification of the people,not to give authority to doctrines of the ChurchIsay this to show you how hard it is to master thebook of Daniel, which in the Hebrew containsneither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of thethree youths, nor the fables of Bel and theDragon" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Second Series,vol. VI, St. Jerome, "Prefaces to Jerome's Works,Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs,Daniel" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 492-93)

One of the modern definitions of apocrypha is: "Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity." Anapocryphal story is one that probably never happened.Consequently, a lot of folks seem to believe books known asthe Apocrypha are mythical works. This is another example of the need to examine ancient writings in the context in whichthey were written and read. Originally, apocrypha meant"hidden away"; Jews considered the books of the Apocryphato be hidden because they were not included in the Bible.When the rabbis established the Jewish canon, they excludedall works written after the age of Ezra (5th Century B.C.). Onecommon thread uniting all the books of the Apocrypha is thatthey were written after Ezra's time.

These days, not many Jews read the Apocrypha. When therabbis of the Talmud placed the Apocrypha outside the biblicalcanon, they essentially declared them of little religioussignificance and relegated them to the status of curiosities.

"Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which arein Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic, the




10/16

apocryphal productions are in Greek ... The JewishChurch considered them uninspired, and some of their writers disclaim inspiration, (prologue toEcclesiasticus; 11 Macc.2:23; 15:38). The

Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha were producedbetween about 250 B.C. and somewhere in theearly Christian centuries. They are not found in theHebrew canon: they are never quoted by Jesus;and it cannot with certainty be affirmed that theapostles ever directly allude to them ..." (Davis,John D. and Henry Snyder Gehman: TheWestminster Dictionary of the Bible; Philadelphia:Westminster Press (1944), p. 33)

In the beginning of this post, I mentioned that the bishops metat Trent supported their inclusion of the Apocrypha in theCatholic canon by recalling that the regional councils in Hippoand Carthage had included these books in their canons. I statedthat the endorsements of these councils was not what the RCCclaims. Cardinal Cajetan, in commenting on the final chapter of Esther, wrote:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historicalbooks of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is,Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) arecounted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books,and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along withWisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from theProtogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like araw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, eitherin the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, thesebooks reckoned as canonical. For the words as wellof councils as of doctors are to be reduced to thecorrection of Jerome. Now, according to his




11/16

judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatiusand Heliodorus, these books (and any other likebooks in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical,that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming

matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical,that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in thecanon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearlythrough that which Augustine says, and what iswritten in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary onall the Authentic Historical Books of the OldTestament," cited by William Whitaker in "ADisputation on Holy Scripture,"Cambridge:Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

What is Cajetan telling us? Quite simply, he is agreeing withJerome that the word 'canon' was understood to have twodistinct meanings. The inspired writings, authoritative for establishing doctrine were ascribed proto-canonical status. Theapocrypha and ecclesiastical books, though not authoritativefor setting doctrine, had value for edification and wereassigned a deutero-canonical status. This is how the RCChistorically understood Augustine and the Council of Carthage.

I find it interesting that Jerome and Origen, the only two EarlyChurch Fathers considered to have been true Bible scholarsand both of whom lived for a time in Palestine and werefamiliar with the Jewish canon, rejected the Apocrypha. Yet,in 1546, the Catholic Council of Trent went against bothCatholic tradition and church practice by declaring theApocrypha to be part of the Canon.


2/8/2012http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc16-apocryph...


12/16

Why is the Roman church so set on making and keeping theApocrypha part of the Canon of Scripture?

Could it be because so many of Rome's innovative doctrines

can only be supported by appealing to the uninspired books of the Apocrypha?

The Roman church points to a passage in 2 Maccabees tovalidate the doctrine of Purgatory and justify heretical prayersto and for the dead:

"So Judas having gathered together his army,

came into the city Odollam: and when the seventhday came, they purified themselves according tothe custom, and kept the sabbath in the place. Andthe day following Judas cam with his company, totake away the bodies of them that were slain, andto bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchresof their fathers. And they found under the coats othe slain some of the donaries of the idols of

Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews: 90 thatall plainly saw, for this cause they were slain. Thenthey all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, whohad discovered the things that were hidden. And sobetaking themselves to prayers, they besought him,that the sin which had been committed might beforgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted thepeople to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch asthey saw before their eyes what had happened,because of the sins of those that were slain. Andmaking a gathering, he twelve thousand drachmsof silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered forthe sins of the dead, thinking well and religiouslyconcerning the resurrection, (For if he had not




13/16

hoped that the that were slain should rise again, itwould have seemed superfluous and vain to prayfor the dead,) And because he considered that thewho had fallen asleep with godliness, had greatgrace laid up for them. IT IS THEREFORE AHOLY AND WHOLESOME THOUGHT TOPRAY FOR THE DEAD, THAT THEY MAY BELOOSED FROM SIN. (2 Maccabees 12:38-46,Douay-Rheims Bible, emphasis not in original)

The RCC's Semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation by works issupported by two passages from the Apocrypha:

"Water will quench a flaming fire, and almsmaketh atonement for sin." (Ecclesiasticus 3:30,Ronald Knox translation)

"It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; foralms doth deliver from death, and shall purge awayall sin." Tobit 12:8-9, 17, Ronald Knox translation)

A verse in the Apocrypha can be stretched to support theRCC's heretical doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary:

"And I was a witty child and had received a goodsoul. And whereas I was more good, I came to abody undefiled." (Wisdom 8:19,20, Douay-Rheims

Bible)A while back, I posted an account of a "magical" method for selling a house fast as provided by Mother Angelica. Well, theApocrypha provide other spells and incantaions, among them:

"If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they




14/16

can be driven away by making a smoke of theheart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil willsmell it, and flee away, and never come againanymore." (Tobit 6:5-8. Ronald Knox translation)

Let's see now. The Palastinian Jews never accepted theApocrypha as inspired. Nor did the Samaritans. The Jews inAlexandria never officially accepted the LXX as canonical.The leading fathers of the Greek Church did not accept theApocrypha as inspired writings. Principle lights among theEarly Church Fathers rejected the idea of the inspiration of theApocrypha.

"Rufinus, Jerome, Anastasius, Leontius, Gregorythe Great, and John of Damascus all wrote afterthe provincial Councils of Carthage and Hippounder Augustine. Therefore, to say that thesecouncils somehow authoritatively established thecanon of Scripture is not true. John Cosin, in hiswork The Scholastical History of the Canon, citesfifty-two major ecclesiastical writers from theeighth to the sixteenth centuries who affirmed theview of Jerome. " (William Webster, "The Churchof Rome at the Bar of History," Banner of TruthTrust:Carlisle/Edinburgh (1995), p. 11)

Nevertheless, the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha to be canonical, and this was later reaffirmed by Vatican I. The bishops of the Roman Catholic church accorded to theamorphous collection of apocryphal books what the booksthemselves do not claim: divine inspiration. The Maccabeanauthor says something quite different, as a matter of fact:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5




15/16

books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted toabridge in one book. For considering the difficultythat they find that desire to undertake thenarrations of histories, because of the multitude of

the matter, we have taken care for those indeedthat are willing to read, and as to ourselves indeed,in undertaking this work of abridging, we havetaken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a businessfull of watching and sweat. Leaving to the authorsthe exact handling of every particular, and as forourselves, according to the plan proposed, studyingto brief... For to collect all that is known, to put thediscourse in order, and curiously to discuss everyparticular point, is the duty of the author of ahistory. But to pursue brevity of speech and toavoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted tohim that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration.Which if I have done well, and as it becometh thehistory, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly,it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful todrink always wine, or always water, but pleasant touse sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, soif the speech be always nicely framed, it will not begrateful to the readers..." 2 Maccabees 15: 38-40).

And what do the inspired books say?

"The word of the LORD that came to Joel the sonof Pethuel." (Joel 1:1)

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for




16/16

Ye Must Be Born Again

it shall be given you in that same hour what yeshall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but thespirit of your Father which speaketh inyou" (Matthew 10: 19-20).

"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world,but the spirit which is of God: that we might knowthe things that are freely given to us of God. Whichthings also we speak, not in words which man'swisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghostteacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131)

Who are YOU going to believe: A self-serving Magisteriumthat denied more than 1200 years of the teachings, practicesand beliefs of it's predecessors? Or God Himself?

To me, that is a no-brainer.


The Apocrypha Exposed

Documents

Transcript of The Apocrypha Exposed