Since we have considered the recent multiplicity of new translations of the Bible, most of which are leavened with the evil of modernism (euphemism for infidelity), it would be well at this point to turn back to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Many Christians today who were reared in Protestant surroundings are almost unaware of its existence. But as the ecumenical tide continues to rise, and more and more of the liberal Protestant clergy are drifting toward the Roman Church, and there is more talk about including the Apocrypha in some of the new versions, it seems propitious to consider what the Apocrypha is and what recognition should be given it.
Simply stated, the Apocrypha is a group of books and parts of books which have been added to the Old Testament. The title "Apocrypha" means "hidden," "secret," or "occult." These books do not properly belong in the Bible, and even a cursory examination should convince any unbiased person of this fact. The added books are:
I Esdras
II Esdras
Tobias
Judith
Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee
Wisdom of Solomon (unknown author writes as though he were Solomon)
Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Holy Children
The History of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
The Jews had the Old Testament exactly as we have it today, only they divided it into 22 books, thus: 5 books of the law, 8 books of the prophets (this is an arbitrary "8" for this section included Joshua, Judges, the books of Samuel and Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and all the minor prophets—of these there are 12). Under the title of "Other Writings" or "the Psalms" they had the remaining 11 books. Thus, adding together their numbers of 5, 8, and 11, we reach a total of 24; but they referred to them as 22 books. This happens to be the number of the characters of their alphabet, so it may have been an effort to make the number of books conform to that, which caused them to call them 22 books.
The Lord Jesus sanctioned their three-fold division of the Old Testament thus: "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures [other writings] the things concerning Himself." Again, "That all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me." Luke 24:27, 4427And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44). At this point we call attention to the fact that neither the Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever quoted from the Apocryphal writings, although those who have counted them say that the New Testament has 263 direct quotations from the three recognized sections of the Old Testament, and 370 allusions to them. That the Lord and His apostles quoted from the three major divisions of the Old Testament, but not once from the Apocrypha, should be enough evidence to discredit it for any subject-minded Christian; but there is much more to be said against its authenticity.
To carry the examination of the Jewish reckoning of the books of the Old Testament a little further, we might add a quotation from the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was born in the year A.D. 37. He was thoroughly cognizant of Jewish standards of belief and could speak with some measure of authority on such a matter. We quote: "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them." At least some portions of the Apocrypha must have been extant at the time of Josephus—which was also the time of the apostles—but he does not credit them as being divine, or as forming any part of their Scriptures.
This brings us to another proof against its inclusion in the sacred canon of Scripture. God's Word declares: "What advantage then hath the Jew?... Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Rom. 3:1, 21What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1‑2). The word "oracles" refers to the Old Testament. It was certainly a distinct favor and advantage to have the Word of God put into their hands—entrusted to them. This not only gave them a vantage point, but it also increased their responsibility. In this matter of trusteeship, they were more consistent than the Gentiles who without qualm or apology easily sell their present favored place by denying the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and easily part with what the Scripture of Truth says of the Lord Jesus. Now, whether the Jews acted up to their responsibility or not is not the question; but they zealously guarded the precious deposit against encroachments, alterations, or diminutions. Therefore, if the Jewish people were its custodians, and they rejected all parts of the Apocrypha as not a part of God's inspired Word, it is one more reason for our rejecting the Apocrypha.
Another reason for our refusal to accept the Apocrypha is that it never claims to be the Word of God. It does not say, like other portions of the Bible, "Thus saith the LORD." We shall see more of this when we examine some of its statements. It should be quite evident to any reader that it is NOT the inspired Word of God. The difference between day and night is not more easily seen than the difference between the Holy Scriptures and the words of mere men.
As we have heretofore noted, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, except a few portions having to do with Gentiles, which were in Chaldee, or Aramaic. No part of the Old Testament was originally written in Greek, but in Hebrew, and translated into Greek by 72 scholars at Alexandria, Egypt, about 270 B.C. There is no evidence that any part of the Apocrypha was ever in Hebrew, although Jerome who translated the Greek translation into Latin in the 4th century said that some fragments of the Hebrew of the Apocrypha had been seen; but it is all very indefinite and nebulous.
One thing is certain; that is, the Apocrypha was introduced into the Old Testament in the days of the Church in the Christian era. It was not done by the Jews, nor was it done in the beginning of the Church period. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) referred to the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and lets us know that in his day no part of the Apocrypha had been added to the Greek translation, often referred to by the mark "LXX" (in references). The oldest copy of the Septuagint in which is found the Apocrypha is the Vatican Version, supposed to have been made in the latter part of the 4th century. And in 363 the Eastern, or Greek, Church held a council in Laodicea in which they decreed that the Apocryphal books were not inspired, and so were not to be used in churches. Even names of which Rome boasts, such as Athanasius, St. Augustine, Hilary of Arles, Origen, Eusebius, including Gregory the Great (564-604) speak of the Apocrypha as not a part of the true canon of the Old Testament. And their Jerome, who made the Latin Vulgate from the LXX at the behest of Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384), whose secretary he was, said that, while the Church reads them, they are not canonical. (We need to remember, however, that the words "canon" and "canonical" have been bandied about until one scarcely knows what meaning a certain writer has in mind when using it. "Canonical" used in this sense is generally supposed to mean those books of the Bible which are received as inspired by God. But God has given no such list, and certainly men cannot by decree make a book "canonical" in the sense of its being inspired if it is not. But there are certain marks inherent in God's Word which commend themselves to a man's conscience, and the Old Testament as we have it was recognized as such by its lawful custodians.
Mr. J. N. Darby, in volume 18 of his Collected Writings (p. 487), wrote that -"no church ever took them [the Apocryphal books] to be canonical scripture for fifteen hundred years." This remained for 'the Council of Trent to do in the year 1546. Not until then were they considered to be a part of the inspired Word of God, and this was done by a pope and a servile and subservient group of chiefly Italian and Spanish bishops. The council was called and then dismissed, and met off and on for some years under Popes Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV.
The council was convened during strife and wars in Europe over the reformation. The reformers sought to correct abuses within Rome, but the council was convened largely to challenge such efforts at reform, and to enforce the pope's absolute dictation. At it, no effort was made to correct anything or to pacify those who were protesting. It led to a stiffening of papal attitude, which in turn led to the excesses of the reformation.
Andrew Miller in his Church History quotes thus from Mosheim: "The Trentine fathers authorized nothing new; but it is equally true, that they authorized much, hitherto thought, from its want of any sufficient authority, open to individual acceptance or rejection. To these divines,... sitting in the sixteenth century... is the church of Rome indebted for the formal authentification of her peculiar creed." This same historian also quotes from another, Scott, saying: "Doctrines which had hitherto been considered as mere private opinions, open to discussion, were now absurdly made articles of faith, and required to be received on pain of excommunication. Rites—which had formerly been observed only in deference to custom supposed to be ancient, were established by the decrees of the church, and declared to be essential parts of its worship." Vol. 3, p. 479. Into this category falls the forcible acceptance of the Apocrypha as inspired by God, and mandatory compliance by all Catholics. It has been found in all Catholic Bibles since the latest confraternity edition dedicated to St. Joseph is no exception.
We will quote a few excerpts from an entirely neutral source. The Council of Trent was "the eighteenth ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church... held with intermissions from 1545 until 1563.... In the fourth session (1546) sacred tradition was put on a par with Scripture, all the books contained in the Vulgate, including the so-called Apocrypha, were declared to be canonical, and the Vulgate version was pronounced 'authentic.' The doctrine of Justification was after much discussion laid down (1547) in terms which involved the emphatic condemnation of the Lutheran teaching.... Doctrinal decrees were issued on the Mass [this would require a large article to handle in itself, for it nullified—as far as it could—the finished work of Christ, and made the mass a sacrificial offering] purgatory, the veneration due to saints [and their images], and the doctrine of indulgences.... The council set the standards of Roman Catholic faith and practice to the present day. The only things added have been the two definitions of the Immaculate Conception [of Mary] and the infallibility of the Pope." - Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, pp. 8574, 8575. The latest is that of Mary's bodily "assumption" into heaven.
Thus it will easily be seen that this in no way lessened the great tensions in Europe, for Martin Luther's explanation of the divine Word about "justification by faith" had taken hold of much of central Europe. In this way the Roman Church was furnished with an ecclesiastical hammer to bludgeon all nonconformists. And the words of mere men, some ungodly ones at that, were forced on the consciences of her communicants on the threat of excommunication and a charge of heresy. Tradition and the words of men written in the Apocrypha were declared on the "highest" authority to be received without quibble, as divinely inspired.
And all this was done by men who claimed to be God's representatives. Has the church on earth been as faithful in holding the divine deposit as the Jews were with the Old Testament?
Now let us examine some of the passages of the Apocrypha and see whether they do or do not commend themselves to our consciences in the sight of God. First let us notice the book called Tobias. Who wrote it, or why, we do not know; but certainly no conclave of ecclesiastics could ever make it other than it is, just plain fiction. Here is an angel using an alias who orders a young man to take the heart, liver, and gall of a fish to use as a charm against evil spirits, and to restore eyesight to a blind man. It savors of the magic of sorcery from the East, which God's Word condemns. Besides this, the same book teaches false doctrine: "alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting." Chap. 12:9.
The first book of Maccabees may contain some factual history, but it is NOT inspired by God, while much of the second book is little better than nonsense; for instance, the writer says that he is attempting to abridge five books of Jason, and then after many words he says: "But to pursue brevity of speech, and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgment." Chap. 2:32. Is God the author of this? Yet, a footnote to the page says that it is "the Holy Spirit who assists the sacred writers... in seeking out the matter."
And the closing words of the writer of 2 Maccabees are worse, if possible: "Which if I have done well, as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me." Chap. 15:39. Does this commend itself to any open mind as the voice of the Spirit of God? One writer of note wrote: "It is blasphemy to ascribe such words [those just quoted above] to the Holy Ghost."
Martin Luther truly said of the Apocrypha, "The Church cannot give more force or authority to a book than it has in itself. A council cannot make that to be Scripture which in its own nature is not Scripture." And another has said, Stamping a spurious metal with an official gold designation cannot convert it into gold. Then why was Rome so eager to stamp the spurious books inspired? Because it served her purposes and general doctrine. We have just seen the error in Tobias about alms taking away sins. This suits a general doctrine of works. Rome also uses Maccabees for the doctrine of purgatory. But lukewarm, indifferent, ecumenical Protestantism would be content to go along with the Apocrypha. And we say this now, before such a combination of the true Bible with the added books is available.
One more evidence against the Apocrypha is to be found in its unrelated connection with the rest of the Word of God; for instance, nothing should come between Malachi and the New Testament, for it passes from a godly remnant waiting for Christ and speaking one to another of Him, in those days of apostasy, on to the little godly remnant who were waiting for Christ and speaking of Him in the beginning of Matthew and Luke. Men, who were out of the current of God's thoughts, have put the books of Maccabees between them.
Then the book of Esther shows the secret workings of God in providence, while He disowned the idolatrous Jewish people. He wrought for their preservation, though outwardly unseen; hence, His name is never mentioned in the book of Esther; but, in the Apocryphal added section, the very first verse mentions God.
"I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 1918For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18‑19).