Terms I don’t like – Apocrypha (when referring to the Deuterocanonical Books)
Protestants of the last couple of centuries tend to reject what they call the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon), while Catholics accept it as being divinely inspired. This distinction is important because the acceptance of the Deuterocanon as being canonical pretty much necessitates belief in Purgatory and intercessory prayer.
In what may seem to be a nonsequitor, I’d like to point out that the word “prodigal,” as used in the prodigal son, means wasteful. However, if you ask most people what prodigal means, they would incorrectly tell you that it means wayward.
I bring this up because the term “Apocrypha” has also taken on new meanings over the centuries. Before Luther, the Catholic Church itself used the term Apocrypha, because the word had the Greek meaning of the “hidden books.”
Since Luther, however, the word has taken on the meaning of spurious. Catholics now use the term Deuterocanon or Deuterocanonical Books. To Catholics Apocrypha is a loaded term. For Catholics the Apocrypha refers to the gnostic gospels, etc.
Luther wasn’t the first person to reject the Deuterocanonical Books. Marcion of Sinope was Luther’s forerunner. He believed that none of the Old Testament belonged in the Bible. He also rejected Matthew, Mark, and John, along with parts of Luke.
Luther wanted to eliminate the books of James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical Books from his Canon of Scripture. Fortunately, he was talked out of it, but when he published a translation of the Bible where he regrouped the Old Testament so that it had a special section in the back called the Apocrypha.
Luther did so for two reasons. The first was that James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical Books did not conform to his theology. The second was that European Jews of the 1500s (Luther’s time) did not accept the Deuterocanonical Books as a part of their Bible. He felt that this compromised the legitimacy of the books. This second point is very important and I’ll get back to it in a few moments.
Initially all Protestant Bibles included the Deuterocanonical Books. The King James Version contained the Deuterocanon with cross references from the Protocanon in the margins. In 1615, in England, the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury imposed a year’s imprisonment as penalty for publishing Bibles without the Deuterocanonical Books. It wasn’t until 1827 when the British Foreign Bible Society decided to drop the Deuterocanonical Books from the Bible. Some sources state that the decision was made to save on the cost of paper. Other sources state that it was due to pervasive anti-Catholicism in England (Most people don’t know that to this day it is still illegal for the British monarch to marry a Catholic.)
The Jewish Canon
As noted above, Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical Books because most European Jews during his time did not accept them. However, Jews during the time of Jesus did accept them.
During the time of Jesus, there wasn’t a defined Canon. According to Wikipedia, Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine, or common, Greek in the 3rd century BCE. Koine Greek was a universal language that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. The translation process took several years and became known as the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX included the Deuterocanonical Books. Both Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to the LXX.
Wikipedia says “the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.”
Not only did the New Testament writers favor the LXX over the Hebrew Scriptures; they included a boatload of references to the Deuterocanonical Books as documented by this guy.
One good example of a New Testament reference to the Deuterocanon is Hebrews 11:35, which discusses the heroes of the Old Testament.
Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.
This is a clear reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which is even acknowledged by Barnes Notes on the Bible, a respected Protestant resource. The passage from Maccabees is the only example in scripture of someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. When the verse from Hebrews is read in context, it would be difficult to claim that Paul didn’t consider Maccabees (and thus prayer for the dead) as being on the same level as the rest of the Old Testament.
The weight of evidence strongly suggests that the writers of the Bible believed that the Septuagint was scripture. We are instructed by 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired. Adherents of Sola Scriptura must accept the Deuterocanonical Books based upon this verse.
When we learn why some Jews after the time of Jesus came to reject the Deuterocanonical Books, it should cause us to embrace the books all the more.
In “Why Catholic Bibles are bigger,” Gary Michuta explains that during the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135) Christians were still considered a Jewish sect. Christians were pressured by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph to renounce Jesus, join the revolt, and accept Bar Cochba as the Messiah. Of course, Christians refused this apostasy and were treated by Jews as heretics and traitors.
According to Wikipedia, the Council of Jamnia was headed by the Rabbi and it addressed “the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold: A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament… and the inclusion of a curse on the "Minim" which probably included Jewish Christians.”
(A few years ago I looked at the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Council of Jamnia and it acknowledged that participants of the Council did indeed curse Christians. (The entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia is acknowledged in the Wikipedia article) In preparing this post, I referred to the Jewish Encyclopedia again, but interestingly the article on Jamnia has been removed – unless I goofed and didn’t see it.)
The Council, which was made up of survivors of the Pharisees, was not enamored with Christianity. It especially disproved of the Gentile Christians, who primarily spoke Greek. When the Council specified that it wanted to purify Judaism of Greek influences it was saying that it wanted to purify Judaism of Christianity. The formerly accepted Deuterocanon suddenly fell into disrespect because it was highly favored by Christians, who believed that it pointed toward Christ, and it was written in Greek.
The Council banned any scripture that wasn’t written in Hebrew. Ironically the Dead Sea Scrolls subsequently demonstrated that at least some of the Deuterocanonical Books were, in fact, written in Hebrew. (Note that the Hebrew language might not have been the only sacred language used by the Israelites. There is some evidence that the Ge'ez language was also used in ancient times.
According to Wikipedia, “Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.”
Luther based his decision to exclude the Deuterocanon based, in part, on the decision of a Council that cursed Christ and Christians, and whose purpose was to combat Christianity.
One final note about the Council - We know that at the time of Christ there were a variety of Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, and others, all with theological disagreements. According to Michuta, “Judaism was comprised of as many as twenty-four distinct parties...and each...had its own distinctive theology and preferences in matters of canonicity (p. 13).” The Council represented only one sect. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia, for example accepted the Deuterocanonical Books through modern times.
Christianity’s acceptance of the Deuterocanonical Books
Catholic Answers documents Christianity’s acceptance of the Deuterocanonical Books as being scripture as far back as Apostolic times. A similar reference is on EWTN. Documents citing the Deuterocanonical Books as being scripture include:
· The Didache (A.D. 70);
· The Letter of Barnabas(A.D. 74);
· Clement of Rome (A.D. 80);
· Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 135);
· St. Irenaeus (A.D. 189);
· Hippolytus (A.D. 204);
· Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 248);
· Council of Rome (A.D. 382);
· Council of Hippo (A.D. 393);
· Council of Carthage III (A.D. 397);
· St. Augustine (A.D. 397);
· The Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 400);
· St. Jerome (A.D. 401); and
· Pope Innocent I (A.D. 408).
Protestants sometimes cite three sources in claiming that the Deuterocanonical Books weren’t used by early Christians. These are St. Jerome, Athanasius, and Origin.
· While Jerome originally was dubious about the Deuterocanon, he changed his mind. He included them in the Vulgate. He referred to Sirach as being scripture: “Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [Sirach 13:2] “ (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108, in NPNF2, VI:207)
St. Jerome also said: “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
· Athanasius accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39).
· Origin accepted all of the Deuterocanonical Books; he simply recommended not using them in apologetics with Jews.
I certainly concede that there was hesitation by some to accept the Deuterocanonical Books. However, there was significantly less controversy in their acceptance than there was in establishing the canon of the New Testament.
Though most Protestants nowadays reject the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books by the Councils at Hippo and Carthage, it was those very same early Church councils that are cited by Protestants as being guided by the Holy Spirit for establishing the canon of the New Testament.
