Ramblings on Halloween

After reading John Sanidopoulos blog about Halloween, my mind was stirred about the subject. I have already let my feelings on the subject be known in a post called “Halloween” on 25 October 2008
(http://chrisconjectures.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween.html). I am not going to rehash that post or try to improve upon John’s post. Rather, I just want to post some random thoughts on the subject.

I am at present a pastor of a Protestant church. Therefore, I am compelled to deal with this question much more frequently than I care to. When I was growing up, there were never any problems. We had our Church Halloween parties complete with costumes, apple bobbing, hayrides, and tons of candy. I even remember that one year our church had a haunted room (which was not very scary—more like haunted comedy).

Now the shocker, I have not turned into a devil-worshipper, an animal sacrificer, nor a child poisoner. I am not a Satanist, a Wiccan, a pagan, or a Druid. I do not associate with nor am I in league with Anton LaVey, Beelzebub, Samhain, nor any other pagan or neopagan deity, spirit, or practitioner. Wow, it is hard to believe, is it not?

I have often wondered why some of the folks that are the most opposed to Halloween are also opposed to Christmas and Easter celebrations. Then again, there is not much mystery there because they want to avoid all things pagan or with pagan origins. Nevertheless, they are strangely inconsistent in that they still call the days of the week and the months of the year by their pagan names.

Then there is the group that celebrates Easter and Christmas (ignoring the dire warnings from the aforementioned group about the pagan origins of said holidays) but won’t have anything to do with Halloween because it is pagan. This bunch celebrates Easter or the Resurrection on the Day of the Invincible Sun and avoids Halloween because of paganism.

This phenomenon highlights a contention that I have held for many years: logical consistency is not valued by religious right type folks. I could also point out the same odd inconsistency in them screaming for their “religious freedoms” and being more than willing to deprive others of theirs. They want to be able to pray to the Protestant God in schools but wouldn’t dare allow a Buddhist to offer prayers (but all that’s for another post).

Can we go too far? Of course. But I cannot see how it is different to desensitize kids to violence by allowing them to go to a spook house or watch a horror film and allowing them to be desensitized by visiting Hell House or the like. If the problem is desensitization both are equally problematic.

As far as horror films go, I will say there are some that should be avoided. Most of the older films, however, are almost preachy in that good triumphs over evil in the end. No matter how much success the monster or villain has in the course of the film, he/she is soundly defeated in the end. They can be viewed as parables of sorts (much as some see the Harry Potter movies). Even if the evil cannot be permanently stopped (or keeps coming back) that teaches that evil is always with us and even when it is defeated it must be defeated repeatedly. The real monsters are the ones that live in us and it’s for certain they have to be repeatedly vanquished.

I didn’t like Stephen King until I started viewing them as commentaries on social issues (The Shining as a commentary on alcoholism, Carrie on bullying and teenage angst, and Pet Sematary about the dangers of playing God with life and death). These stories are little different from morality plays of old when viewed like this.

In any case, these are my ramblings. Read, think, and react.

A Unique Post

This will not be a usual post in any sense. I read a blog that carried an excellent evaluation of Halloween and wanted to share it.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/orthodoxy-and-halloween-seperating-fact.html

John has done a super job with his research and injecting some common sense into this emotionally-charged and ignorance-drowned issue.

The Silent Years that Weren't

The years between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament are erroneously referred to as the “400 Silent Years.” This period has been defined as “The time gap between Malachi the last book of the Old Testament and Matthew the first of the gospels. God did not speak to His people Israel during this time.”

This subject came to my mind when I was writing the series on 21 objections to the Apocrypha. The fact is when one looks at the facts of history and Scripture, he/she would be hard pressed to refer to these years as silent in any sense.

As we saw in dealing with the Apocrypha, God was not silent as far as written Word. He was inspiring the writers of the Apocryphal books during these years. These books were written in a period from about 100 to 300 years before the birth of Christ, thus in the very heart of the “silent” period. If a person denies the canonical status of the Apocrypha, she/he would naturally think of them as silent in this regard.

The question is why? There are other periods in which the Word is not being actively enscripturated. For example, from the Creation to the time of Moses (this is anywhere from 1000’s of years to who knows how long). So all during the time of the Patriarchs, God was silent as far as writing Scripture is concerned.

The ostensibly silent years were not silent as far as prophets speaking from God. As we saw previously, there were prophetic writings even in the Apocrypha itself (recall the book of Widsom’s prophecy about Jesus in Wisdom 2). Anna, who lived during these years, is called a “prophetess.” She was undoubtedly known to prophesy and that during the Silent Years. (See Luke 2: 36-38)

Was God on vacation for 400 years before the coming of Jesus? Even those who deny the Apocrypha’s canonical status, accord it important historical importance. The intertestamental years are replete with divine activity. God was strengthening the Maccabees to defend Israel, giving a mother and her seven sons strength to face martyrdom (II Maccabees 7), and many other wonderful things.

While the Jews deny that the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture, they celebrate a holy day that is mentioned ONLY in the Apocrypha, namely, Hanukkah. This holiday commemorates the re-dedication of the Temple in the 163 BC after its desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. God performed a miracle when the consecrated oil, sufficient for only one day, was multiplied and burned for eight days until more oil could be pressed and prepared (1 Maccabees 4:56–59).

Therefore, we can see that God was neither silent nor inactive during this time. The fact is He is never inactive or silent; He is ever working and we should all be thankful for that.

Used or Misused

I have heard something twice lately from two different people.

1. A lady was talking about something she had done and said, “How can I be wrong when the Lord is using me like he does?”
2. A man was disparaging another person’s attendance and lifestyle and said, “How can the Lord be using that woman when she lives like that?”

Both questions are based on the idea that God only uses people that are doing everything right and that if a person is not “right” they cannot be used by God.

This idea leads to two other equally false premises:

1. That a person can be judged by the miracles or great works for God that they do.
2. That being used is evidence of a holy life.

One question is easily that answered is “Does God only use those who are “right?” The answer to that question has to be “no.” Let’s look at some examples:

1. Balaam’s donkey was not right or even saved, but God spoke to Balaam through him.
2. Caiaphas the high priest prophesied although he was condemning Jesus. John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
3. Samson could carry the gates of the city off even after having just slept with a harlot--Jdg 16:1 & 3 Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.
(3) And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.

The two bases for this are answered easily also. Can a person be judged by the great works they do or miracles they perform? Jesus answers that question in Matthew 7:

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
(Mat 7:21-23)

So according to Jesus, great works (“being used”) does not equate to holy living and is, therefore, no evidence of God’s favor or a righteous person.

Part of the problem with this kind of thinking is that they are looking for evidence in all the wrong places. Some want to see miracles, signs and wonders but care very little for holiness of attitude and heart. The same person who is so “wonderfully used” in the gifts of the Spirit has no interest in cultivating the fruit of the Spirit.

Among Pentes, it leads to such things as a person who says, “Well, I give out messages in tongues and interpret” who are simultaneously the most arrogant and unpleasant person one could ever have the displeasure to encounter. But because of their “spiritual” attainment, they “know” that their life is fine and approved by the Almighty.

Some may think the foregoing is merely caricature and that no real person exhibits this kind of behavior. If you are among those believing such, let me be the one to disabuse you of that fallacy. I know (and have known) many folks that do and have done the very things I have described.

One reason I want to bring this out is the great spiritual danger attendant upon this type of thinking. A person can be easily deluded into feeling perfectly secure in their sinful lifestyle because they can still speak in tongues. They can have horrible fits of anger and act in all kind of ungodly ways and still feel justified in doing so because they “speak in tongues every day” or because “God is still answering my prayers.”

This kind of self-delusion is the worst type of delusion because when one believes that God is validating her/his life, they see no need to change or repent. After all, “if the Spirit of the Lord is still using me, I must be doing something right.” (This is the same idiotic retort given when the heresies of some church or pastor are mentioned: “Well, they are growing exponentially so they must be doing something right.)

Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part III

Let us now examine Bible.ca’s list of 21 reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha beginning at number 14.

14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

The word that jumped out at me was “occasionally.” I suppose there could be a number of denotations of this word according to the context in which it was used, but in this case it seems a highly inappropriate choice. The reason is found in the answer to the #1 objection. As Bercot notes, there are more than 300 direct and indirect references to the Apocryphal works found in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

As to the assertion that “it was nowhere accepted in the canon,” one might question why it is quoted as “Scripture” and said to be spoken by the Holy Spirit if it is not in the canon.

When referencing Eusebius concerning Origen, the writer should have done two things: 1) Read the passage carefully; and, 2) Read the footnote attached in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. First, let us look at the passage from Ecclesiastical History [NPNF 2-01: bk IV, ch. 25: 273]:

“The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis….And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”

Now footnote 1975:

“[I]t must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter fact is proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his express citation of at least some of them as Scripture.”

Melito enumerated 21 books in the Hebrew canon (inexplicably omitting the book of Esther). But his is the opinion of one bishop, not the consensus of the Church. He is allowed to have private opinions but his opinions are not the opinion of the whole Church.

15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

Allow me to quote footnote 675 from NPNF 2-01 p. 144-5 (please recall that this series was in no wise sympathetic to Catholicism):

“The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon.”

Both the Synod of Hippo (393) and the 3rd Council of Carthage also affirm that the Apocrypha could be read as divine Scripture in the Church.

We also have the “Decretum de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris” attributed to Pope Gelasius late in the Fifth Century who affirms the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. Even if this document comes from the early Sixth Century, it serves to prove that the Catholic Church did accept the books as canonical.

Again, our writer has failed to cite even one instance of the “many medieval Catholic scholars” who supposedly realized the Apocrypha was not inspired. Dealing with phantom scholars and unknown texts makes this very difficult to refute.

16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

This is really a weak argument. So because it took longer for the Deuterocanonical books to be recognized as inspired means that they aren’t? Better be careful with that argument because that would also take away the books of 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. The title Deuterocanon is applied because the books are not put on the same level as the Protocanon by portions of the Early Church. It is true there was dispute with some Fathers and churches but in the end the Church as a whole came down in favor of the books being included and treated as Scripture.

17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

This objection is convoluted to say the least. In order to deal with it we will have to deal with the separate issues stated.

First, let’s look at the Council of Carthage (by which I assume the writer intends the Third Council of Carthage in 397). This council accepted the Apocrypha, as had the earlier Synod of Hippo (393) [see NPNF 2-14 p. 453-4 for the 24th canon of the Council of Carthage]. So I am not sure why they even bring this Council up because it serves to disprove parts of their arguments.

I have not found the quote (for which there is no citation) ostensibly from the Council of Carthage in any of the canons of that Council. Again, citations would be immensely helpful if we are to take these objections seriously.

The comments on Jerome are especially hard to take seriously. It is true that Jerome separated the books outside the Hebrew canon and deemed them “Apocrypha” but it is not true that he did not include them in the Vulgate. In fact, every complete edition of the Vulgate contains these books. Thus, it is clear that Jerome was inconsistent and his theory was not reflected in his practice.

Even so, it is helpful to note Jerome’s own words in reference to the Apocrypha as found in his Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs [NPNF 2-06: 492]:

(After speaking of the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, which were sent at the same time, the Preface continues):
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

Please notice that he admits here that the Church does indeed read these books even if they do not use them to “give authority” to any Church doctrine.

18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)

This is very vague since we are not informed if the quote comes from Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria. Using the approximate date, I would surmise the writer refers to Cyril of Jerusalem who was born about 313. Again, I would certainly appreciate some citations for this (and other) quotations. However, in this case we don’t even need one to refute this point because it the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha (see next answer).

19. The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.

Wow! What a mess of an objection. The Alexandrian Jews are the ones who translated the Septuagint! And they translated all the books of the Apocrypha. So the first part of this objection is confused rubbish.

20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

The writer probably should have read a bit more closely because St. Hilary actually includes the Epistle of Jeremiah, Tobit and Judith in his listing. [See http://www.bible-researcher.com/hilary.html]

21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

One may refer to the following website to refute this nonsense http://www.bible-researcher.com/epiphanius.html. Please note in both passages cited there, Epiphanius mentions apocryphal books in his lists. He notes that some of them are of “disputed canonicty” but then calls them “sacred books” in the Panarion VIII.6 and “divine writings” in Panarion LXXVI.5. IF Bible.ca would describe these books as Bishop Epiphanius did, I wouldn’t have had this wonderful subject to write about on my blog!

While I am on this subject, I want to address one more very common objection to the Apocrypha. It is stated that none of the books are ever quoted from or alluded to in the New Testament. I am surprised that anyone would use this objection in that there are several Old Testament books that are never quoted by the New Testament (the ones not quoted are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

This objection is not correct in what it asserts either. Two examples are enough to invalidate this argument (many more could be adduced). First, Paul alludes to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Secondly, the writer of Hebrews refers to Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:35. One other good example is found in Sirach 27:6 and Matthew 7:16.

As a way to close out this series of post, I want to share one of the finest prophetic descriptions of our Lord Jesus Christ that is found in Wisdom 2: 12-20:

Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

I’m glad I at long last abandoned Protestant beliefs on a “shorter canon”; otherwise, I would have never seen this beautiful prophesy about the Lord and His death.

Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part II

Let us now continue looking at Bible.ca’s 21 reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) and our reasons for rejecting their 21 reasons.

8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

The first verse here when seen in context is not objectionable at all:
Ecclesiasticus 25:16-20 KJV “I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon, than to keep house with a wicked woman. The wickedness of a woman changeth her face, and darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth. Her husband shall sit among his neighbours; and when he heareth it shall sigh bitterly. All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her. As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.”

It becomes clear that the verse referred to is telling what a man (a husband) feels about the iniquity of his wife. (See the Good News Translation and the New American Bible for other versions that clarify the issue).

According to Genesis 3, the first human sinner was a woman, namely Eve. So what’s the problem with Ecclesiasticus 25:24? This verse also comports well with I Timothy 2: 13-14.

In dealing with Ecclesiasticus 22:3, it is helpful to consult the context and other translations also. The King James Apocrypha reads [vv. 3-5]:

“An evilnurtured man is the dishonour of his father that begat him: and a foolish daughter is born to his loss. A wise daughter shall bring an inheritance to her husband: but she that liveth dishonestly is her father's heaviness. She that is bold dishonoureth both her father and her husband, but they both shall despise her.”

Again, I see nothing objectionable about this passage. It is true that the book of Proverbs deals largely with evil, unruly sons; there is no doubt, however, that evil daughters are equally blameworthy as Ecclesiasticus accurately portrays.

9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

The problem here is first with the word “teaches.” If they mean that these books portray these actions, they are quite correct. But that can’t be a problem since the Biblical books they accept also show people involved in sinful acts (and some of them seem to be “approved” actions).

Since they have adduced no proof of the Apocryphal books “approving” any sinful practice, they have not proven their point. No need to refute this because it is self-refuting.

10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

This raises a few questions in my mind:
First, if these books aren’t inspired what difference does it make that they refer to the so-called Silent 400 years? Maybe these are some of those “fabulous” statements to which they referred in to in point #6. And why if these books are uninspired and full of errors would anyone even mention this as a point?

Secondly, do they mean to imply that only prophets can write inspired Scripture? If so, we will have to throw out anything by Solomon who was no prophet and will have to be selective in dealing with some of the other books since we don’t know who wrote them. Besides it is very limiting to God to say that He can’t inspire Scriptures unless there are some prophets around to write it down. I would think God could use whomever He chose to write His Word.

Thirdly, since these folks are sola scripturaists, where are we told in the canonical books they accept that there were 400 Silent Years? This is a supposition at best. There is no inspired statement to that affect. In fact, the above-cited passages don’t prove nor even imply that there was a silent period nor do they prove that only prophets can write inspired words from God.

11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

Interesting! So they are willing to deny the possibility that God inspired the Apocrypha but willing to put faith in the pronouncements of Josephus as to what books God actually inspired?

He was a member of the Pharisees and was born several years after the death of Christ. Thus, we cannot be certain that he reflected the general attitude of the Jews at the time of Christ.

Even if he did accurately reflect Jewish attitudes of his time, that is as meaningless as the Jewish attitude reflected in their rejection of the Apocrypha in 7O CE and of Jesus in 30 CE. Josephus is suspect as a historian and even more suspect as a theologian.

The twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are also mentioned by that great defender of the faith Athanasius the Apostolic. However, two paragraphs later, he tells us the following:

“But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. [NPNF 2-04 p. 552 Athanasius the Apostolic From Letter XXXIX.]

Please take notice that he distinguishes between the writings that are read for “instruction in the word of godliness” and the “apocryphal writings” which he does not even mention in that they are the “invention of heretics.”

It is clear therefore, that admitting there are 22 books in the Old Testament does not preclude believing in the Apocrypha Bible.ca’s objections to the contrary notwithstanding.

12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

Another reason to which I say, so what? The Manual of Discipline was written by a sect of Jews known as Essenes at Qumran (although there are other theories as to their origin this is the most prevalent one). Were they inspired? Does the Manual of Discipline speak infallibly?

This book is thought to have originated around 100 BCE, so it was during the 400 Silent Years. If, that argument invalidates the Apocrypha, it would also invalidate the Manual. One cannot have it both ways.

Although it is asserted that the Manual rejects the Apocrypha as uninspired, they offer us no proof or citation of that fact. Strangely, also among the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found copies of some of the Apocryphal books and books that aren’t accepted even by the Catholic Church (for example, Jubilees and Enoch).

13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "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. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])

With all due respect to Dr. Bruce, I cannot accept his word as fact in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Let’s look at some facts rather than opinions. The Council of Jamnia was a Jewish council that was held sometime near the end of the First Century. There are two major things that happened at this meeting. First, the Septuagint (LXX) was rejected. Secondly, a curse was pronounced on Christians and other sects.

One reason for the rejection of the Septuagint was that it was considered the Bible of the Christians although it had been translated in pre-Christian times by Jews in the city of Alexandria. The LXX much more clearly contains prophesies of Jesus Christ which the Early Church used to convince both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was the Christ. In order to forestall such efforts, the Council opted for what is known as the Masoretic Text.

It makes me wonder why this Christian group at Bible.ca would want to take the opinion of Christian-cursing Jews as the truth. Why would the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus and His followers and even cursed them, be thought of as a reliable source of information on the divine inspiration of anything much less the Apocrypha?

Dr. Bruce obfuscates the fact that this council did indeed delete things that had been there. In fact, the books of the Apocrypha had been a part of the Septuagint from the very beginning. They were not a part of the Hebrew text it is true. His statement that they had never “been admitted” is misleading in that the first time any texts were admitted by the Jews was this council.

We will begin with their 14th objection in our next post.

Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part I

The website www.bible.ca provides a wealth of material for those who are against Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. They provide a number of pages filled with what can only be described as half-truths mixed with delusions, mistakes and inaccuracies.

One place this becomes evident is in their treatment of the Apocrypha. They, of course, do not believe that the Deuterocanonical books belong in the Bible. They are not even gracious enough to accord them a place as good reading (as for instance the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church does). This article is found at http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

Let’s look at their 21 reasons the Apocrypha is not inspired to see what they have to say and if they actually are viable arguments. (By the way, these are fairly typical Protestant arguments concerning the Apocryphal books and thus will serve the purpose of refuting the opinions from many sources.)

Quotes from the website will be in bold type to distinguish it from my answers.

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

This is only partially true. The Roman Catholic Church did recognize the Apocrypha at Trent but they recognized something that had been viewed as Scripture since very early in the Church’s existence. Evidence of this was presented in an earlier blog entitled “Apocryphal Appreciation” from which I quote the following:

One indication of the attitude of the Fathers is found in the fact that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers there are “over 300 quotations and references to the deuterocanonical books.” (Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 207)

And as I also pointed out previously, many of the Fathers specifically refer to Apocryphal books as “Scripture.”

Besides, the “longer” canon was drawn up and officially accepted in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The identical list had been “accepted” in 382 by Pope Damasus.
While there is supporting evidence for some “Catholic” doctrines, many who believe in these books would dispute that they support purgatory or the treasury of merit.

2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

There are two problems with this argument. Number one, it is inaccurate. In addition to Hebrew, Aramaic was also used in portions of the Old Testament (in Daniel and Ezra for example). Number two even if all the inspired writers used Hebrew, so what? Does that mean they couldn’t use another language as well. They generally used Hebrew because that was the language they and their audience spoke. When the lingua franca changed, they translated their Hebrew Bibles to Greek. Thus, any new books written would have most naturally been written in Greek since Hebrew was the language of scholars and unintelligible to the average “Jew on the street.”

3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

Neither do many of the writers in the Old Testament and the New Testament for that matter. In addition, there are many manifestly ungodly books that do make claims for inspiration. Thus, a claim of inspiration is neither a requirement for a book that is inspired nor a guarantee that one, which claims to be so, actually in inspired. This is one of the weakest points of all concerning the apocrypha and yet it is oft repeated and accepted at face value without any consideration of the problems inherent in it.

4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

This, as presented, is a non sequitir argument. Even if the first part is correct, the second does not follow from the first.

What is not stated here is that the “Jewish Church” did not officially “accept” any books until after the New Testament era. Further, in the “Jewish” Bible of the Greek-speaking world (the Septuagint) the Apocrypha is included. The Septuagint (LXX) is the translation in use during the New Testament period because as we said above it was in the language of the people of that day.

The website

http://www.yrm.org/apocrypha.htm

presents the following in their diatribe against the deuterocanonical books:

“In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the Apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 CE.”

How interesting and irrelevant! What does that mean to me as a Christian? Nothing. Why? Well, the fact that they had overthrown (in their hearts at least) the Lord Jesus Christ about 40 years earlier makes their rejection of anything in 70 CE meaningless. They had rejected the Living Word, so is it any surprise that they also rejected parts of God’s written revelation and especially so since these writings were accepted by the followers of their rejected Messiah.

As far as our Lord's sanction of these books, while it it true He never quoted from them, there are certainly allusions to them from His lips and from the Apostles.

5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

See #1 above.

6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

I am not certain what they are getting at by using the word “fabulous” here. This word can mean several things: viz. beyond belief, historically inaccurate, mythical, or extremely pleasing. If they mean that these are only mythical stories, they are wrong. These books provide some very important historical facts unavailable to us from other sources. If they refer to their statements as beyond belief, one might say the same about other statements of Scripture and yet they are accepted on faith. So I will have to conclude that the fabulous statements are the very pleasing ones in these books.

As far as the contradictions are concerned, they are unwilling to deal with the seeming contradictions of the Apocrypha in the same way they deal with the seeming contradictions in the other canonical books. Naturally, this would be attributed to the fact that “these books aren’t canonical.” But this is a circular argument and does not hold water.

One might also remember that there are two different stories of several events (Creation is one example) in the accepted books of the Bible but these are explained by scholars.

7.The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

The big shocker for Protestants is that the Early Christians also prayed for the dead as I demonstrated in Prayer for the Departed.

Where the Apocrypha teaches sinless perfection is not stated and I have never seen it, so I can’t refute it.

We will pick up on number 8 in our next post.

Of Gnats and Camels

I never cease to be amazed at how adequately the words of Jesus apply to many religious people with whom I am familiar. Which particular words of Jesus am I referring to? The following:

“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Mathew 23:24 RSV

The case in point is with many of my colleagues among the Pentecostals. Recently while visiting a board that I am a member of, the discussion turned to the Pentecostal preacher T. D. Jakes. Someone was going on about how he had said something and how wise he was. Lest one think this is abnormal, I would hasten to point out that many Pentes greatly admire Mr. Jakes and listen to everything he preaches and read everything he writes.

What is the problem with that? Jakes is a unitarian; in other words, he is a Oneness Pentecostal believer. He does not believe that God is Trinity, rather He is Unity—1 person, not three. I have already tackled the idea that the Early Church was Oneness in a previous post, so I won’t go through that again.

What amazes me is that my Trinitarian Pentecostal friends have no problem with Jakes’ beliefs on this foundational doctrine of Christianity. This doctrine is no peripheral matter—it is the very heart of the Christian faith. A person’s beliefs about God are determinative in everything else a person believes.

Not only is Jakes accepted readily, so are other Oneness adherents. One example is Tommy Tenney. A few years back he became very popular among Pentes with his book, The God Chasers (the book, while failing to broach his heretical theology of the Godhead, has a multitude of other problems). Mr. Tenney is a part of the United Pentecostal Church.

The fact that these purveyors of completely heretical drivel could be accepted by orthodox Pentes is only half of the puzzle (the swallowing camels portion). The other half is (straining gnats) is that the same ones who gulp down these Sabellian heretics with relish will reject someone as a heretic because the person does not believe in the pretribulation rapture or some other doctrine that has no real bearing on salvation.

For instance, if a person were to be found that espoused the idea that speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, they could expect the “left foot” of fellowship to be administered to them in quick order. If a pastor were to teach his congregation that it was appropriate to baptize infants, he would be forced to find another form of employment. Were someone to dare introduce the Scriptural notion that the Communion is the body and blood of Christ, he/she would be rejected instantly as “Catholic” and “backslidden.” In each case, the persons involved would be deemed as heretics of the first order.

Thus, denying the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures and Tradition are deemed as perfectly acceptable, while denying or espousing some minor doctrinal point is not countenanced. How can such things be? How can one view the foundation of the house as less important than the kind of curtain one places in the house? That is not to say that the above-mentioned doctrines are minor trifles but they do not have the weight of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I don’t have an answer as to why this phenomenon exists among Pentes. It is a mystery that bears some (more) exploration.