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.
