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.
