Apocrypha

Thanks for being so willing to give a fair hearing to the Catholic side. Prejudice is
already built into the term, "Apocrypha," which means "hidden," as if Catholics
have something to hide about these books. It is true that Catholic have seven more
books in their Old Testament than Protestants do, but there is nothing hidden about
them. These books can survive scrutiny every bit as much as the other books of the
Bible can. They are named Baruch, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees,
Sirach (sometimes called Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, and Wisdom of Solomon. Catholics
also have one more section of text in Esther and three more sections in Daniel. A
Catholic properly refers to the seven books listed above as "Deutero-canonical
Books," NOT as the Apocrypha.

Pre-Christian writings that Jews and Catholics today consider to be canonical are
called Proto-canonical books, while those that Catholics have canonized but Jews
have not are called Deutero-canonical. I will call them DCB for short. This dual
classification recalls the importance of Jewish assessments in determining the
inspiration and canonicity of the earlier pre-Christian writings. An important, rather
surprising historical fact is that Christians started collecting the Second Canon before
Judaism had completed collecting the First Canon. Since each one of the DCB must
be assessed on its own merits, a person cannot credibly claim to "prove" the case
against all seven by simply making a case against one or two of them.

A biblical canon exists in order to provide reasonable assurances to the religious
community that makes full use of it. It assures them that their group will not very
easily deviate in its official beliefs and practices away from its traditional, highest
standards. It is one important way of measuring, in the name of God, the present
by means of a more reliable past. Yet biblical canons evolve, and historical issues
that surround them are often complicated. The commonly-asked question, "Exactly
which ancient religious writings did this or that particular group agree to use in
measuring religious truth claims, beliefs, and practices, and when did this group first
agree among its members about this collection and its purpose?" is usually not easy
to answer, especially when official pronouncements are not abundant.

In the case of the Christian Old Testament, the process of canonization spanned
millennia, and included at least some rather long periods in which few helpful
testimonies about the extent of the canon survive. If an ancient Jew or Christian
quoted a religious writing as an authority, would it be safe to count this as evidence
for his or her belief in the inspiration of that writing? In his quotes, even St. Paul
gathered truth from pagan poets, such as Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides. A
writing can be true without being inspired, and a writing that is viewed as true often
appears just as useful for testing truth claims, beliefs, and practices as an inspired
one does. Under what assured conditions are relevant testimonies gathered from
several members of a group to be fairly construed as truly representative of the
entire group to which they belong? Who can credibly claim to speak for the whole
group to the satisfaction of the scholars? When it comes to the extent of the biblical
canon, we simply do not know any of the viewpoints of most deceased Jews and
Christians throughout the ages, not even those of most of their leaders. Today we
can hardly claim that we have all the writings of anyone in the ancient world. Most
first-century Jewish leaders have left no writings that have come down to us, even
though many of them no doubt wrote about religious matters. Just because an
historical figure did not mention a particular writing does not mean that he or she
was either unaware of its existence or treated it as lacking authority or inspiration.

Did Roman Catholics add the DCB to counter the Protestant Reformation? No.
All the biblical books that Catholics hold today to be inspired were declared to be
such by the Council of Florence. This Council took place several decades before
Martin Luther, the first Protestant, was even born. It is only one very short step
from saying a book is inspired to saying that it is canonical, although a biblical canon
need not include every inspired writing in order for it to function effectively as a rule
of faith and practice for its religious community. Every book that the Council of
Florence declared to be inspired, the Council of Trent later declared to be
canonical. St. Jerome reported that the bishops at the Council of Nicea in 325
A.D. treated the book of Judith as having canonical status. During his lifetime, a
council met in Rome (382 A.D.) and declared to be canonical exactly the same
biblical books that Florence later declared to be inspired! Earlier still, the Apostolic
Fathers as a group referred to all the DCB except Baruch and First Maccabees.

Educated Protestants voice several key objections to the Catholic claim that the
DCB are inspired by God and belong in the true Canon of the Holy Scriptures. The
most vocal opponents today are evangelicals, and so we shall concentrate on their
arguments, since they have spent much time crafting their strongest objections.

They say, "The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word cannot teach errors, but
these books teach historical and geographical errors." This argument assumes
that there are greater problems in these books on such matters than in the rest of the
Bible. But the same biblical scholars that find errors in the DCB, the Second
Canon, find them also in the First Canon, the Proto-canonical books, which are the
thirty-nine Old Testament books of the Protestant Bible. For example, it is easier to
defend the historical truth of the book of Judith than it is of Esther. These critical
scholars claim to see the same kinds of error in both Canons, with no significantly
greater frequency in either.

What is different is that some Protestant Fundamentalist perceptions allow for an
unfair double standard. If a book “belongs in” their Bible, they tend to drag their
heels to admit that an error exists. If a book “is not in” their Bible, they tend to be
as quick as an atheist to say that an error exists. Each book among the DCB must
face the test of accuracy on its own, and none of them appears inferior to every
book in the Protestant Bible. To be credible, an unbiased biblical scholar must do
his or her scholarly task without using a Fundamentalistic double standard.

The evangelicals' second argument is designed more to keep other evangelicals
convinced than to convince other Christians. They say, "The Apocrypha contains a
mixture of orthodox, heretical and immoral beliefs and practices, but God's Word
is pure; it teaches only Christian orthodoxy and true morality." If “Christian
orthodoxy” and "true morality" equals Martin Luther’s religion, then, of course,
some teachings in the DCB are erroneous. But because “Christian orthodoxy” is
really Roman Catholicism, these books teach only truth for the sake of our
salvation. According to Second Maccabees, one should pray for the dead, and
according to Tobit, one should give alms to atone for one’s sins. These are the
main reasons why Protestants first subtracted some of the DCB from the Bible.

The evangelicals' third argument is, "God's Word is consistent, and so any part of
the Apocrypha that claims NOT to be part of God’s Word truly is not." The
Catholic Church does not believe that any part of God’s Word, including the DCB,
makes such a contradictory claim. This can be verified by carefully studying the
meanings of such passages and taking full account of the plausible explanations. It is
true that none of the DCB claims to be inspired, but this is also true of many of the
Proto-canonical books. Only a claim not to be inspired would pose a problem for
the DCB. It is true that First Maccabees claims that prophets have already ceased
to appear in Israel, but every biblical writer does not have to be a prophet. Indeed,
some books of the First Canon, as far as we know, were not written by prophets.

The evangelicals' fourth argument is, "The Jews during the days of Jesus and after
have always kept the Apocrypha out of their Bible." It is true that anti-Christian
Judaism today treats as Scripture all the books and only the books that Protestants
have in their Old Testament, but it has not been always so. Jews wrote the DCB
for other Jews, mostly in Aramaic and Hebrew, but sometimes in Greek. It is true
that Philo, Josephus, and some other first-century Jews did not view them as God’s
Word. But we also know that all first-century Jews did not agree on which books
belong in the Bible. In fact, we have evidence that Ezekiel, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Esther, and Proverbs were disputed by some of these Jews who accepted a wide
biblical canon. The Sadducees and the Samaritans accepted only the Torah, the five
books of Moses, and rejected all the rest. Only the Pharisee movement survived the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and lived to evolve into Rabbinic Judaism.

The Dead Sea Scroll caves have preserved Hebrew fragments of some of the DCB,
though scholars did not discover there any commentaries on these books. These
scrolls and manuscript fragments hint that at least some first-century Jews did not
view Esther as Holy Scripture. It is the only book of the First Canon that was not
uncovered in the Qumran caves. Bishop Melito of Sardis visited Palestine in the
second century and reported that the Jewish biblical canon of his day did not contain
Esther either. Yet Esther is today included in the Jewish and Protestant Bibles.

The Babylonian Talmud also indicates that some second-century Jews in the
tradition of the Pharisees viewed Sirach as inspired Scripture. In this context, it
quotes Sirach three times in the same manner that it cites other Scriptures. Yet
Sirach is today missing from the Jewish and Protestant Bibles.

Everything we know about Jesus and His apostles reveals that they were totally
Jewish in this matter, and they did not leave behind any comprehensive list of
inspired or canonical books. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ and His Apostles
quoted mostly from the Septuagint (LXX), the earliest Greek translation of the
Hebrew sacred writings. In fact, eighty percent of all Scriptural quotations found in
the New Testament writings are in some aspects derived from the Septuagint. At
least some of the DCB made up parts of the LXX from very early times. Some
New Testament writers seem to allude to these parts, but they never quote from
them. While it is true that the New Testament never cites any of seven DCB as
Scripture, in LXX form or otherwise, neither does the New Testament cite in any
form at least twelve books found in the Old Testament of the Protestant Bible.

One cannot prove much for the Catholic position from the Septuagint (LXX). This
is for the very same reason that a Protestant today can quote from a Catholic Bible
without accepting all the books of that Bible to be inspired. New Testament writers
could have done the same when it comes to the LXX. This ancient translation does
seem to show, though, that at least some early Jews accepted at least some of the
DCB as inspired writings. During its earliest centuries, the Septuagint was a rather
loose collection of scrolls. Only later were these writings bound closely together in
book form as codices, which were perhaps a Christian invention. The earliest
surviving copies of the LXX in book form date from long after the time of the
Apostles, in the fourth century AD. Furthermore, no ancient surviving codex of the
LXX contains the very same collection of religious writings, though the oldest ones,
which are all Christian ones, contain various ones from among the DCB.

Christianity was functioning for several centuries before all non-Christian Jews
agreed that all of the DCB were not inspired. By drawing their line at the time of
Ezra, the rabbis could exclude the New Testament writings as well as the DCB,
which Christians were alreadly using as Scriptures from which to mine arguments
for Jesus as the Messiah. Anti-Christian bias explains why Rabbinic Judaism drew
the line at Ezra. Furthermore, Jewish Christian claims to possessing revelations
from the Holy Spirit explain why Christianity could not draw the same line. Today
many Jewish scholars freely admit that their Bible includes some writings after Ezra.

The evangelicals' fifth argument is, "It took three centuries before Church councils
officially included the Apocrypha in the Bible." This fact appears impressive, until
one suddenly realizes that it took three centuries before Church councils officially
declared ANY book to be in the Bible! It took three centuries before Church
councils officially declared some New Testament writings to belong in the Bible.
There were disputed books that later made it into the New Testament as well as into
the Old. The same Holy Spirit Who was guiding the Church for the one also guided
her for the other.

Also notice this fifth argument admits that the length of time was three centuries, not
fifteen or sixteen. So it admits that the Council of Florence (1441 A.D.) was not the
first Church council to declare the inspiration of the DCB, or that the Council of
Trent (1545-1562) was the first to declare them to be canonical. Catholics had
almost daily been using these books and portions of books as Holy Scriptures since
the days of the Apostles. The later official declarations were hardly anything but a
formality to protect the Bible from heretics. No church councils before the
Protestant ones ever decreed that the DCB should be excluded from the Bible!

The evangelicals' sixth argument is, "Until the Council of Trent, some Catholics,
including some Church Fathers and scholars, rejected the divine inspiration of
one or more of the books of the Apocrypha." Almost all the Fathers used these
books as Scripture, though some had some doubts, or even worse (St. Jerome, St.
Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nazianzus) . It was
mostly their awareness of the smaller canon of Rabbinic Judaism that sometimes
caused them to doubt or deny their inspiration. Keep in mind, though, that some
Church Fathers spoke against the inspiration of one or more of the New Testament
books as well as one or more of the Catholic Old Testament books.

Before the time of the Council of Trent, Catholic scholars did not agree on which
Church councils were ecumenical. They knew that Church Fathers disagreed on the
divine inspiration of one or more of the DCB, and so St. Cajetan, Ximines, and
other Catholic theologians and scholars also felt free to exclude them and render a
private opinion on the matter. Now Catholics know that the Council of Florence as
well as the Council of Trent was an ecumenical Council of the Church.

We conclude that long before the first Protestants came on the scene, Catholics
were using the seven DCB as Sacred Scripture. Then Martin Luther and his
followers came along. They claimed that the true Faith could be discovered by
reading only the true Bible. But how could they know which Bible was the true
Bible until they first knew what the true Faith was? On its own principles, then,
Protestantism reasoned in a circle, and put the cart before the horse. THE END.

QUESTION: Which Bible is the real Bible? I was talking to a Catholic neighbor
the other day, and we did not have any Bible on hand except her own. As I was
looking through it for the verses that I wanted to show her, I couldn't help noticing
that her Catholic Bible had some books that mine does not have. Then it dawned on
me. Indeed, many years ago, when I was just a teenager, my pastor had warned our
confirmation class that Roman Catholics add the Apocrypha to their Bibles. He said
that Catholics are notorious for adding to religion what should never be added. I
have to agree. You add five sacraments to the two biblical ones; you add using oils
and candles to baptism; you add sacrifice to holy communion; you add Mary to
worshipping Jesus, and you add Tradition to interpreting the Bible. So it is very
easy for me to believe that you even mixed uninspired books (the Apocrypha) with
God's Word. I find this to be an alarming thought, since God's Word, in its purity, is
necessary for the salvation of mankind. But I believe in being fair, and so I want to
hear the Catholic side of the issue. I know details matter, and so do not spare me
the details, but keep in mind that I am just an educated laywoman. To be sure,
leaders of the Roman Catholic Church did this desperate deed in desperate times,
when the Popes were fearing for the very life of their unreformed Church, during
the Protestant Reformation. To convince the masses, Roman Catholics felt a great
compulsion to get Catholic teachings into the Bible one way or the other, and so
their leaders resorted to this perverse action. How do you, a Catholic priest,
know for sure that the Apocrypha is inspired and belongs in the Holy Bible?
Answered by Rev. Paul L. Rothermel

WARNING! This is an advanced website. To maximize benefit, you should first
acquire a basic and intermediate understanding of Christianity. There are many
intermediate websites. For an entry level experience, feel free to browse my
other website: What You Should Know about ULTIMATE REALITY

"A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
--Alexander Pope

The Catholic Bible IS the real Bible