Bible Question - The Apocryphal books

Email a link of this article to a friend

Bible Question
Recently I was studying the Holy Bible with a Friend and was shocked to find his version (New American Catholic Bible) contained seven extra books named as follows: Tobit, Judith, Maccabees1, Maccabees2, Book of Wisdom, Book of Sirach, and the Book of Baruch. Why do these books appear in only the Catholic version?

As for the first one, the books that you list are referred to as "apocryphal." These additional writings were adopted be the Council of Trent in 1546 and have been part of their canon ever since. However, they were never considered "inspired" writings by any other scholars of the time. Today, there is universal agreement, outside the catholic church, that these writings should not be part of the canon and that is why you don't find them in any of the modern Bibles.

The full list includes; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach).

The main reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha are:
1) No New Testament quotations are taken from it
2) No proof that the Greek Old Testament (LXX) contained it
3) No church council favored them in the first four centuries
4) Many individuals vehemently opposed them (i.e. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Jerome)
5) The Catholic Council of Trent was the first official proclamation of the apocrypha
6) Most was written in the intertestamental period (when prophecy was believed to have ceased)
7) It does not pass the tests of canonicity

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Thank you for your response to the answer regarding the Deuterocanonical books on our website. I believe there are a number of points that you need to consider:

First , regarding the Septuagint. It is true that the Alexandrian canon did contain the Deuterocanonical books. However, the council of Trent (1546) only accepted 11 of the 14. Why? Especially interesting is their rejection of 4 th Ezra (2 Esdras) which included the doctrine of prayers for the dead (7:105). In addition, there are several other books that vary in name - as well as number. For example, the Alexandrian did not contain the book of Maccabeees. In another edition of the Alexandrian it included 1 st Esdras and 3 rd and 4 th Maccabees, 1 st and 2 nd Clement which are not accepted by Rome.

Jerome only reluctantly translated Judith, Tobit and additions to Esther. His successors inserted the old latin version of the Deuterocanonical books into his Vulgate OT. Jerome most certainly did not accept the Hebrew canon with the Deuterocanonical books.

In addition, there is no evidence that the LXX contained the Deuterocanonical books. Therefore, it is not a valid argument to say that "Jesus and the Apostles" used a Bible that contained these books. Such has never been proven.

But let's say - for the sake of argument - that Jesus and the Apostles did use the Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books. Why didn't they once quote from them? In addition, if Jesus and the Apostles used a version that included the deutero books - and therefore gives divine credence to those books - on what basis has the Catholic church eliminated 3 of those books? How could someone assume authority to eliminate books that Jesus and the Apostles sanctioned?

The fact is, neither Jesus, the Apostles nor the early church accepted the deutero books.

Second , I believe there is one fundamental point that needs to be made about what happened at Jamnia. I believe my position is best summed up as follows:

"The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted" (F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments , p. 98).

"The council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it" (J.S. Wright, Evangelical Quarterly , April, 1947, p. 97).

In addition, your point regarding the writings is true in one sense - they did debate whether those books belonged in the canon. However, they did not include any that had not previously been accepted, nor exclude any that had been accepted. Besides, Jesus acknowledge the threefold division of the Old Testament (Luke 24:44), as did the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), and Philo De Vita Contemplativa 3, 25 (c. A.D. 40). The books that were included in this threefold division were confirmed by Josephus ( Against Apion 1.8), and were actually verified by Jesus' statement "from the blood of righteous Abel (first book in Hebrew Bible - Genesis) to the blood of Zachariah" (last book of Hebrew Bible - Chronicles). The OT canon was clearly completed and understood by all during Jesus day.

That threefold division, which Jesus obviously accepted, did not include the Deuterocanonical books. It concurs with the division given by Josephus and others. In addition, Jesus verified the writings that included the prophets from Abel to Zechariah. This is not a chronological division, but a division based upon the first book of the Hebrew canon (Genesis = Abel) to the last book of the Hebrew canon (Chronicles = Zechariah). In the Hebrew Bible the book of Daniel does not come after Chronicles. However, the books of the deuterocanonical do:

• Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.)

• Sirach (c. 132 B.C.)

• Judiah (c. 150 B.C.)

• Tobit (c. 200 B.C.).

Therefore these do not fit within my (actually Josephus') timeline when prophecy was still alive. The additions to Daniel and Esther are considered to have been written much later than when the original books were written (c. 150 B.C.). The web sites you noted give what I consider to be an obvious biased view - therefore research needs to be done

By way of summary, it is clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not included in what Jesus or the early church accepted. These books were categorically rejected by the early church and early church writers (such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Jerome). There are no New Testament quotations of any of these books, they are never referred to as scripture, and most were written during the inter-testamental period (when prophecy was believed to have ceased - cf. Josephus, Against Apion 1.8.41; 1 Maccabees 9:27; 14:41). Certainly we would have expected some statement of confirmation from Jesus or the apostles - but there are none. Instead Jesus verified the 39 books of the traditional Hebrew OT. That is all. These 39 books were clearly established as the inspired canon of scripture well before the meeting at Jamnia.

One side note: Jack P. Lewis recently published an article in the 125 th anniversary volume of the Hebrew Union College Annual entitled "Jamnia after Forty Years." In this article he thoroughly discusses what happened at Jamnia. His has persuaded most scholars to abandon the unsubstantiated notion regarding the fixation of the canon at Jamnia.

Third , the argument has been made that Javneh (Jamnia) rejected the foundational documents of the church, which is why they rejected the deutero books. Such an assertion is, from the outset, ridiculous. Have you read the Deuterocanonical books? They certainly do not support Christianity and the church. If Jamnia was trying to eliminate books that supported Christianity, why not eliminate Isaiah? Zechariah? Psalms? Those books did far more to promote Christianity than did any deutero book! In addition, go to the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Acts. When those inspired writers were attempting to prove Christianity they used the traditional OT canon - and NONE of the deutero books. So, if these books were so precious and valuable for Christianity, why didn't the inspired writers use them?

Fourth , consider 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. The crucial question is does the GRAPHE make the man of God complete "thoroughly furnished" or not? This clearly supports the Scripture only idea. We believe in the totality of what this passage teaches - and that with the GRAPHE we have all that we need. Either this is what the passage says or it is not. Which is it? One may argue that there was more given - but that is begging the question. The more that was given was included in the GRAPHE (cf. 2 Peter 3:15f).

In addition, look at John 20:30, 31. Here is the question. If I take what John has written, and believe that, can I have eternal life? John says I can. Therefore, if such is true I don't need the "sacred tradition" of the Catholic church.

Fifth , look again at 1 Corinthians 13 and the miraculous gifts. The three that are going to pass are "prophecy, tongues and knowledge." Did you notice that knowledge was a miraculous gift mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8? There was a special gift given, an extra measure of knowledge, that one received without having studied. This miraculous knowledge was to cease.

If what Paul was saying is that these gifts were to last until the end of time, of what value is that? Such would be worthless information, and not relevant to what he has been talking about.

In addition, to be true to the text you must see the relationship between the "part" (prophecy, tongues and knowledge) and the "perfect." There must be a logical relationship between these two. The "end of time" is not a logical connection, but the completed revelation is. Why? Because the purpose of the gifts was to confirm the word given by His apostles and prophets (Hebrews 2:4). Once the word was confirmed and recorded, there was no reason for the gifts to confirm it. You want proof of that statement? Go back to John 20:30, 31. If we were going to continually witness the signs, then what John says here makes no sense. However, if we are not going to be able to witness the signs (like Thomas did) then we must believe they occurred by faith. After all, isn't that the point Jesus is making to Thomas?

We believe the New Testament teaches the following:

1) That only the GRAPHE (that which is written down) is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16f). You will note that Paul had earlier called the gospel of Luke GRAPHE, thus showing that the NT books were already being recognized as a part of God's inspired word (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter equally called the writings of Paul GRAPHE (2 Pet. 3:15ff).

2) The NT was written by two groups of individuals: apostles and prophets - Eph.3:5; cf. Eph. 2:20. The apostles are those who met the qualifications discussed in Acts 1:21-22 (when they were going to replace Judas). There are no men alive today that meet these qualifications, thus there are no apostles today. The prophets are those who had the hands of the apostles laid on them (the manifestations of the Spirit were given only through the laying on of the apostle's hands - Acts 8:18). Thus, when the apostle's died, there were none left to give the miraculous (manifestations) gifts of the Holy Spirit. Equally, when the last person died on whom an apostle's hands had been laid, all miraculous gifts came to an end. I believe this is what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 13, when he says that when the perfect comes the "partial" (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) will be done away with.

3) That God intended the written word to be His complete revelation to man, and that by the NT alone one would have "everything that pertains to life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3) and would be following the "faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). I believe that if all I have, and all I follow is the New Testament, I will be a child of God and saved from my sins. The churches of Christ appeal to no other authority than the Bible. We give a "book, chapter and verse" for everything we believe and practice. How can you go wrong with such a practice?

Denny Petrillo, Ph.D.

Bear Valley Church of Christ, 2707 S. Lamar St., Denver, CO 80227
Phone: 303-986-4521 E-mail:

2707 S. Lamar Street Denver Colorado 80227				Voice: 303-986-4521
What We Believe	Bible Questions	Ask Us About It	Study Topics	Members