Myths of the Apocrypha – Part III

Welcome back to the third and final “Myths of the Apocrypha!” In the first article, we asked whether Roman Catholics inserted seven “apocrypha” books into their canon to disprove Martin Luther. In the second, we asked whether early Christians rejected those same books for containing false teachings. Today, we ask the big question: “Did Jesus and His apostles quote any of these seven books?”

Myth #1: Roman Catholics inserted “apocrypha” books into their canon to disprove Martin Luther.
Myth #2: Early Christians rejected the “apocrypha” books because those books contained false teachings.
Myth #3: Jesus and His apostles never quoted these books in the New Testament.

I have offered seven books for consideration: Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. For those who are new to the series, I will repeat just two key ideas. First, these seven books were confirmed as Scripture prior to the Reformation not just by Rome, but by all four deeply divided sections of Christianity which even then spanned the globe from Denmark to India to Russia to Ethiopia. The myth that Rome inserted these books after the Reformation makes no sense in light of the global Christian affirmation of all seven books by Christians who had been divided from Rome by church schisms for 500 to 1,000 years before the Reformation.

Second, the word “apocrypha” itself did not refer in the early church to these seven books. In the first centuries, the word “apocrypha” referred to Gnostic, heretical writings which the apostolic line of bishops always rejected everywhere in the world. I do not insult these seven books by calling them “apocrypha,” but as the “wider canon.”

THE HEART OF THE QUESTION

We ask today whether Jesus and His apostles quoted the wider canon. The popular myth is that these seven books are not Scripture and can be rejected as Scripture because Jesus and His apostles did not quote any of the seven. Yet if this idea were used consistently, we would have to reject not just seven books of the Old Testament, but several more books including Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah.

I will offer just four quotes of the wider canon in the New Testament, acknowledging that none of these four are preceded with “as it is written.” If the reader does not wish to acknowledge the wider canon, these four quotes will not likely change minds. Yet if we reject the wider canon as Scripture, then we also reject 1,500 years of global Christianity. When Jesus prophesied that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, I submit that his words make it impossible for all four branches of Christianity all over the world to have fallen into the grievous error of calling apocryphal writings holy Scripture for 1,500 years. Those who reject the wider canon unintentionally accuse Christianity of worldwide heresy from the earliest centuries, unchecked by God until the Protestant revelation.

QUOTED PHRASES

Without further ado, I offer just four phrases from the wider canon which appear to have been quoted word for word in the New Testament. Defenders of the wider canon often list many passages which appear to be referenced in the New Testament. Protestant Bible scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland list over 300 New Testament references to the wider canon in the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Not only are the Alands Protestants, but they are considered by many to be the among the greatest New Testament scholars of the 20th century. Rather than offering New Testament references here, I present just four quotations for consideration:

From Tobit 7:18, “Lord of heaven and earth” is duplicated word for word in Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, and Acts 17:24. Surprisingly, this phrase is not used anywhere else in the Old Testament.

From 1 Maccabees 2:50, “zealous for the law” is duplicated word for word in Acts 21:20 and employed in Philippians 3:5-6. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.

From Sirach 5:11, “swift to listen” is duplicated in James 1:19. It occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.

From 2 Maccabees 13:4, “King of Kings” is duplicated word for word in reference to God in 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:16. This phrase is only used for pagan kings elsewhere in the Old Testament. Only in 2 Maccabees is it applied to God as the New Testament uses it.

PROPHECIES OF JESUS

I close now with prophecies of Jesus which were written in the wider canon. The Orthodox Study Bible affirms these as prophetic in the study notes of each passage, and I am optimistic that their inspired nature will be obvious to any Christian:

JESUS AS CREATOR:
- Wisdom 9:1 “O God of our fathers and the Lord of mercy, Who made all things by Your word” (See John 1:3)
HIS INCARNATION:
- Baruch 4:21-24 “O my children, take courage, cry out to God, and He will deliver you from the power and the hand of the enemies. 22 For I hope upon the Eternal One to save you, and the joy from the Holy One comes to me, because mercy will soon come to you from the Eternal One, your Savior. 23 For I sent you out with sorrow and weeping, but with joy and gladness God will restore you to me forever. 24 For just as the neighbors of Zion have now seen your exile, so too they will soon see your salvation from your God, which will come upon you with great glory and the radiance of the Eternal One.” (See Luke 1:68-79 and Luke 2:10-11)
- Baruch 3:36-38 “This is our God; no other shall be compared to Him. 37 He found the whole way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. 38 Afterwards, He was seen upon the earth and lived among men.” (See John 1:1, Luke 2:40, and John 1:14)
- Wisdom 18:14-15 “For while gentle silence embraced everything And night at its own speed was half over, 15 Your all- powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, Into the midst of a doomed land, A relentless warrior carrying the sharp sword Of Your irrevocable command” (See Luke 2:8-11)
HIS TEACHINGS:
- Sirach 7:14 “do not repeat yourself in prayer” (Matthew 6:7)
- Sirach 24:21 “Those who eat me will hunger for more, And those who drink me will thirst for more.” (See Matthew 5:6 and John 7:37)
- Sirach 27:6 “As fruit reveals how a tree is cultivated, So a man’s reasoning process reveals his heart.” (See Matthew 7:20)
- Sirach 28:2 “Forgive a wrong done you by your neighbor; Then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.” (See Mark 11:25-26 and Luke 6:37)
- Sirach 6:24-28 (speaking of Wisdom) “Put your feet into her fetters and your neck into her collar. 25 Put your shoulder under her and carry her, And do not be angry with her bonds. 26 Come to her with all your soul, And keep her ways with all your strength. 27 Search for her and seek her out, And she will become known to you; And when you become self-controlled, do not let her go. 28 For in the end you will find her rest, And she will turn to you in gladness.” (See Matthew 11:28)
- Wisdom 9:17 “Who has known Your counsel, Unless You have given him wisdom And sent him Your Holy Spirit from on high?” (See John 14:26 and John 16:13)
PHARISEES’ REACTION:
- Wisdom 2:13-16 “He claims to have knowledge of God, And he calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He has become for us as a refutation of our purposes; Even seeing him is a burden to us, 15 Because his life is unlike that of others; For his paths go in a different direction. 16 We are considered by him as a hybrid, And he avoids our ways as something immoral. He considers the last things of the righteous as blessed And pretends that God is his Father.” (See John 5:18)
HIS SUFFERING:
- Wisdom 2:17-20 “Let us see if his words are true, And let us put these last things to the test at the end of his life. 18 For if the righteous man is a son of God, He will help him, And deliver him from the hand of those who oppose him. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture That we may know his gentleness And test his patient endurance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, For there shall be a visitation because of his words” (See Matthew 27:43)
HIS RESURRECTION
- Wisdom 5:1-4 “Then the righteous man will stand with confidence In the presence of those who afflict him; And those who reject his labors, 2 When they see him, will be shaken with dreadful fear; And they shall be amazed at his unexpected salvation. 3 They will speak among themselves with regret, And in anguish of spirit they will groan and say, 4 ‘This is the man whom we fools once held in derision And made a byword of disgrace. We considered his life to be madness And his death as without honor.’ ” (See Matthew 27:54, Acts 9:3-5, and Zechariah 12:10)
HIS SECOND COMING
- Wisdom 5:17-20 “He will take His zeal as His full armor And will turn His creation into weapons against His enemies. 18 He will wear righteousness as a breastplate And put on impartial judgment as a helmet. 19 He will take holiness as an unconquerable shield 20 And sharpen His relentless wrath for a sword; And creation will fight with Him against the senseless.” (See Revelation 19:11-15)
- Wisdom 9:2-3 “And in Your wisdom built a man, that by You He might be the master of what is created, And manage the world in holiness and righteousness, And pass judgment with uprightness of soul” (See Isaiah 11:3-4. Also, these verses come immediately after Wisdom 9:1, which is quoted above under the “Creation” heading)

CONCLUSION

Thank you for tuning in to “Myths of the Apocrypha!” I pray this series has benefitted many. It saddens me that most Protestants do not have the joy of seven scriptures which all four divided branches of Christianity affirmed as divinely inspired long before the Reformation. The gates of hell did not prevail against the church of the Son of God; she cannot have unanimously blasphemed God by calling seven books Scripture all around the world which were instead apocryphal. Despite the best intentions of the Reformers, they made some serious mistakes, mistakes which can be corrected today.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

[/wpex]

9 responses to “Myths of the Apocrypha – Part III”

Jacob Prahlow

November 20, 2015

Matthew,

Before anything else, thank you for this series. I think you’ve done a great job both introducing and commending the Apocrypha to readers who are otherwise unfamiliar with these seven books, but without coming across too strongly.

My main concern with this article is your section “quoted phrases.” A couple of thoughts:

First, the Alands remark on the marginal notes that references like those you mention refer “to parallels and similar expressions in the New Testament writings, as well as quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament.” (NA27, 76) Here I think the main issue is the qualitative difference between quotations and allusions (as well as the well-documented ways in which the strength and viability of citations differs, see Bruce Metzger, Lee McDonald, and Julie Hughes on this in). That is, not every “reminiscence” recorded in Scripture is necessarily a reflection of a particular written source: it could
(literally) *just* sound similar. With these four references in particular, there is little here other than an allusion–the weakest form of relying on another written source, exhibiting only brief and/or fleeting verbal similarities. Two and three word similarities do not seem like a good way to establish strong relationship to me.

Second, I’m not sure of the implications of these possible citations even if they are from the Apocrypha. For starters, only one phrase is found on the lips of Jesus, that being the surprisingly generic “Lord of heaven and earth.” Let’s assume for the moment, however, that Jesus was consciously drawing on Tobit there–what can we discern from that single, solitary, and theologically motivated quotation other than the fact that Jesus knew Tobit? None of these citations (or the books they are found in)–at least in the places you’ve outlined–play a formative role in the theology or arguments of the authors/speakers who use them. This is even in contrast to a writing like 1 Clement, which employs Judith as a legitimate source for understanding how God acts in the world.

Third, on the phrase “King of Kings”, I would point you to G.K. Beale’s article “The Origin of ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’ in Revelation 17.14” (NTS 31,4 [1985]: 618f), which convincingly demonstrates that the phrase “king of kings” comes from LXX Daniel 4.37, where Nebuchadnezzar uses it in reference to Yahweh (I can send this to you if you’d like).

Thus, not only does it seem like the NT really uses the Apocryphal books (this in direct portions to other *sections* of the OT, at least Torah and Nevi’im), but also that if/when it does, the implications of those uses are far from establishing the authority of those writings. I hasten to note that I don’t think these things necessarily rule out including the Apocryphal writings in Christian Bibles, only that this type of argumentation seems problematic.

I look forward to hearing your responses.

Best, JJP

Matthew Bryan

November 20, 2015

Hi, Jacob. Great points, sir.

First, I’m thrilled to learn this about the “King of Kings” occuring in the LXX of Daniel. Thank you for sharing that information. I love how distinctly Persian the title is “King of Kings,” as translated from “Shahanshah.” I was not accustomed until recently to view Christianity as an ancient Asian religion. The final Shah of Iran in the 20th century still claimed the title Shahanshah. To me, the apostolic use of that title reflects the strength of Persian influence in the first century, inviting modern readers to learn more about Ancient Christianity outside of the Roman Empire.

I readily accept your point that the four “quotations” are difficult to defend as quotations. I did try to state as much in the article itself while still offering them to the reader. The strongest case for quotation among these four is “zealous for the law.” The high drama of Mattathias’ deathbed makes his charge stand out as particularly memorable. More important, the Jewish culture’s shift toward Phariseeism subsequent to Mattathias’ words makes it nearly impossible (for me personally) to believe that it is not an actual quotation in the New Testament.

I intentionally did not spend any time in my article arguing for or defending the status of these four phrases as quotations. Instead, I did more of a bait-and-switch, treating the *purpose* of “Myth #3” rather than the factual basis of “Myth #3.” Rather than debunking it, I attempted to uproot the *purpose* of “Myth #3” – the rejection of the wider canon. So I used the opportunity to more forcefully state what was subtly presented in the first article: to reject the wider canon is akin to rejecting the claims of Jesus of Nazareth Himself in Matthew 16:18.

I didn’t want to open the series with so strong of an accusation. In light of the Vincentian measure, Protestant rejection of the wider canon is more problematic than most people realize. If I reject 3rd Corinthians, I accuse just one denomination of canonical error. If I reject 3rd Maccabees, I accuse just two branches of Christianity of erroneously canonizing it. Rejection of these seven however, seems to me to paint all of pre-Reformation Christianity as unanimously incapable of hearing the Shepherd’s voice. It is far too much like the Mormon claim that all of Christianity had gone astray.

Loading…

Reply
1. Paul Pavao
  
  November 21, 2015
  
  While I wish we all used the larger Orthodox canon, which has more books than even the Roman Catholics, I just can’t embrace the idea that rejecting the deuterocanonicals (the RCC’s preferred term) is remotely similar to rejecting the claims of Jesus. I suppose the fact that I don’t interpret “the gates of hell won’t stand against the church” the way you do in the article probably affects this.
  
  The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about “the wider canon” in the Latin church (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church): “In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.”
  
  That quote is from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm, the Catholic Enyclopedia’s article “Canon of the Old Testament.”
  
  It seems to me that if “few” acknowledged the canonicity of those books in the medieval Latin Church (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm for whom they mean by that), then it is an overly strong accusation to say that those who reject them are rejecting the claims of Jesus himself. That idea sort of takes my breath away.
  
  One last thing. I’m sort of “weirded out” (to use the terminology of my adult children) by the idea of writing on a topic like this to someone I know personally and who lives so close to me. It’s a tough decision to email or talk to you personally or to write on this post. In this case, my objection is pertinent to your article, so it seemed best to post it here.
  
  Loading…

Matthew Bryan

April 12, 2017

Hi, Paul. As discussed, I just saw your reply over a year later. Let’s assume that my understanding of Matthew 16:18 is flawed and that I spoke too strongly (or was received too strongly) in equating rejection of the wider canon to rejection of Jesus’ teaching.

Making those assumptions, the central purpose of all three of these “Myths” articles was to introduce those who reject the wider canon to the historical facts about them. In Protestantism, a tragic defensiveness hinders most believers from freely considering the topic.

The biggest surprise in Church history is the agreement among all four apostolic branches on the topic of the canon, since the four branches separated without deciding the canon. Granted, there is disagreement among the four branches, but it is not a bone of contention between them, nor do the milder disagreements (e.g. 3rd Maccabees and 3rd Esdras) detract in my understanding from the unity regarding the divine status of 73 books.

You referenced an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I appreciated and took the time to review. Your response clarified disagreement in one of the four branches, thereby detracting from my understanding of unity. While I appreciate the counterpoint, the same article lightens the impact of this apparent contradiction. The article made a strong point of relegating canonical skepticism to the ivory tower scholars alone while affirming that the seven books in question were included in every Latin Bible without disclaimer and without question by average Roman Catholics.

In my understanding, the encyclopedia simply shows that disagreement on the canon does not lead to excommunication nor accusations of heresy. If my article gave the impression of condemning disagreement, I assure you wholeheartedly that it was not my intent. But the question I’ve tried to offer throughout the article is one which detractors to the wider canon have never answered:

“Does anything other than divine intervention explain how all four apostolic branches agreed in isolation from one another about 73 books, despite the lack of agreement on the topic prior to their bitter divisions centuries earlier?”
Gratefully,
Matthew

Hunter Jones

November 4, 2022

Dear Matthew,
re: ‘Your Response to reader Paul Pavao- 6 years ago’, i.e.
“In my understanding, the [Catholic] encyclopedia simply shows that disagreement on the canon does not lead to excommunication nor accusations of heresy. If my article gave the impression of condemning disagreement, I assure you wholeheartedly that it was not my intent. But the question I’ve tried to offer throughout the article is one which detractors to the wider canon have never answered”.
I would like, Sir, to make a few points.
1) It is my understanding that the Vulgate was published for centuries with Jerome’s prologues, which were indeed ‘disclaimers’ against each ‘Apocrypha’ book to follow-stating that each one was NOT canonical. Obviously, the great Douay-Rheims translation eliminated these prologues.
2) It appears that the earliest ‘binding’ church canon for Roman Catholics (Council of Rome, A.D. 382 under Pope Damasus) did NOT include the book of Baruch. Even Lamentations is ‘numbered’ as a distinct book apart from Jeremiah. Also, the BEST manuscript of Jerome’s Vulgate (Codex Amiatinus, A.D. 716) likewise lacks Baruch.
3) “Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books” (Brown, Vol. II,p. 523). Source: Brown, Raymond E., SS, et al. The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968.
4) Since the Council of Trent anathematized any Christians who disagreed with it (4th Session on the Canon, Apr 8, 1546), a modern-day Catholic who vocally rejected the Full-Inspiration/Canonicity of the ‘Apocrypha’, would probably be excommunicated nowadays. Protestants claim (rightly or wrongly) that Trent was the 1st time in Church History that the term “equal(veneration)” was ever used of our books. If that should be true, then Trent was an ‘innovation’ and would NOT meet the ‘Vincentian Rule’.
As an Episcopalian, I have no quarrel with the Apocrypha/Deuteros. Were it up to me (God Forbid), I would severely limit the Apocrypha within my denomination, and perhaps Protestantism in general. Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees help fill the very real historical and theological ‘gap’ between Malachi and Matthew. Maybe JUST these could be appended after Malachi. This would satisfy neither Protestants nor Papalists but would be a compromise of sorts. Also, Prayers for the Dead are a ‘one off’- not ‘commanded’ of Jews then or Christians- now. * n.b. but I still ‘like’ Tobias and his faithful dog as well.

Loading…

Reply
1. Hunter Jones
  
  November 4, 2022
  
  My point #1 seems to be a slight exaggeration or better -‘misapplication’- on my part. The Glossia Ordinaria of the 12th-13th centuries was the commentary on each book utilized by church scholastics. This/these ‘glosses’ repeated Jerome’s prologues not necessary the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate- themselves. Thanks!
  
  Loading…
2. Matthew Bryan
  
  November 14, 2022
  
  Thanks for your input, Hunter!
  
  Loading…

Hunter Jones

December 19, 2022

Hi again Matthew,
1] Gary Michuta (author of “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”) has a bi-weekly online video series over at the “Apocrypha Apocalypse”. He mostly deals with the ongoing issue of the Canon, and has both Protestant fans and occasional naysayers chime in. He is a great guy and more than worth your seeking him out to comment yourself. Check out ALL his videos on this fascinating issue.

2] There is an interesting I guess we would have to say ‘Protestant’ resurrected body of [Edward] Irvingites out there called the ‘New Apoctolic Church’. This communion accepts the full Greek Orthodox Deuterocanon as scripture, as well as Intercession for the Dead. Small World!

With every good wish, Hunter [Jones]

Conciliar Post