The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

IV. Generally Rejected Prior to Trent

An important point in the Christian Era was reached with Jerome’s Vulgate. He was the first to use the term Apocrypha to mean the Greek additions in the Septuagint; he recognized only the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures as canonical. ¹⁴ But under pressure Jerome hastily yet reluctantly translated the Greek books of Judith and Tobit. In reality he disparaged the reading of the Apocrypha. PFF1 80.1

“Let her understand that they (the Apocrypha) are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.” ¹⁵ PFF1 80.2

Feeling was running strongly in favor of the other books of the Apocrypha. Ere long these were added to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, though information as to the extent of Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin of some of these texts is very meager. It was this enlarged Vulgate that later received official recognition, under pain of anathema, at the Council of Trent in 1543. with revision from Clement VIII in 1592. ¹⁶ PFF1 80.3

1. ILLUSTRIOUS FIGURES REJECT GREEK APOCRYPHA

Now, with rapid steps, let us traverse the centuries from Melito in the second century, on to the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, noting the succession of illustrious figures who reject the Greek Apocrypha and hold to the original Hebrew canon. ¹⁷ Note the array: PFF1 80.4

Melito, bishop of Sardis, whose record is preserved by Eusebius, lists only the books of the Hebrew canon as canonical. ¹⁸ Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (d. 230) differentiate between the “canonical” and “apocryphal” books, but they meant the apocalyp writings. ¹⁹ Origen (d. c. 254) expressly states that the canonical books admitted by Jews and Christians were twenty—two in number—the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. ²⁰ Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) in like fashion named and numbered the Old Testament canon as twenty—two, although he states that some by adding Tobit and Judith make the number agree with the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet. ²¹ Athanasius (d. 373) limited them to the twenty—two (although he included Baruch and the epistle with Jeremiah). ²² But these are not all. PFF1 81.1

Gregory Nazianzen, or Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 391), excludes the Apocrypha and lists the twenty—two canonical books. ²³ Jerome (d. 420) also, in his Prologus Galeatus (Helmeted Preface) to the books of Samuel and Kings, addressed to Paula and Eustochium, gives us a catalog of the Old Testament books identical with ours, and excludes as Apocryphal all books outside this canon. ²⁴ The same is true of Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), in his Catecheticak Lectures, who lists twenty—two and urges avoidance of the Apocryphal, and of Epiphanius (d. 403), who omits the Apocrypha in his Liber de Alensuris et Ponderibus (Book Concerning Weights and Measures). ²⁵ PFF1 81.2

2. INTRODUCED UNDER INFLUENCE OF AUGUSTINE

But when we come to Augustine (d. 430) seven disputed books are introduced into the canon—Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, the Apocryphal 1 Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus—in his work On Christian Doctrine; ²⁶ and in his celebrated City of God he cites not only the canonical books of the Hebrews but also the Apocrypha. ²⁷ Notwithstanding opposite theories, the ordinary practice of Western theologians was to use the Apocryphal writings as they did the canonical. The Synods at Hippo (393) and Carthage (the 3rd, 397), held under Augustine’s influence, included the Apocrypha. ²⁸ PFF1 82.1

Though the opinion of Augustine was followed by many, on the other hand many of the most learned of the fathers and later writers from the fourth century on to the time of the Council of Trent held the opinion that some or all of the books in dispute were Apocryphal: Gregory Nazianzen, Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch (d. 559), Leontius (fl. 6th century), Junilius commonly known as Junilius Africanus, sixth—century ecclesiastical writer, Gregory the great (d. 604), the Venerable 500:735), John of Damascus (d. 754), Alcuin (d. 804), Rupert 12th century), Peter Mauritius, Hugh—of—St—Victor, the Saxon——(1141), Richard of S,—.Victor (d. 1173), John of Salisbury (1182), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Hugo, the Cardinal (13th century), Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), William of Occam, of Oxford (14th century), and Thomas Anglicus (15th century), Paul of Burgos (d. 1435), Alphonso Tostatus (d. 1454), Cardinal Ximenes (d. 1517), Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Faber Stapulensis of Paris Id. 1537), Luis Vives (d. 1540), Erasmus (d. 1536), and even Cardinal Cajetan (d. 1534). ²⁹ Outside the Roman church, the Waldenses rejected the Apocrypha, but retained them in the Bible as useful although noncanonical. PFF1 83.1

3. PRE—REFORMATION AND REFORMATION REJECTION

In the pre—Reformation period Wyclif showed himself the forerunner of the Reformation in this as in other matters, and applied the term Apocrypha to all but the recognized canonical books of the Old Testament.” ³⁰ The churches of the Reformation went back generally to the Hebrew canon, giving only qualified sanction to the reading and limited ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha—for instruction, but not to establish doctrine. The early English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale) included the Apocryphal books but separated them from the canonical writings. ³¹ Carlstadt was evidently the first Protestant to pay special attention to the canon, siding with Jerome in designating the added writings as Apocryphal, or noncanonical. ³² PFF1 83.2

4. LUTHERAN, ANGLICAN, AND CALVINIST POSITIONS

Midway between the supporting Romanist and rejecting Calvinist positions is that of the Anglican and Lutheran churches. Luther placed the Apocrypha between the Old and the New Testament, with the statement: PFF1 84.1

“Apocrypha; that is, books which, although not estimated equal to the Holy Scriptures, are yet useful and good to read.” ³³ PFF1 84.2

Article VI of the Thirty—nine Articles of the Church of England explains the Anglica attitude: PFF1 84.3

“And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayth) the Churche doth reade for example of lyfe and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establishe any doctrene.” ³⁴ PFF1 84.4

The Calvinistic objection is recorded in the Westminster Confession: PFF1 84.5

“The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” ³⁵ PFF1 84.6

Although the Reformers did not consider the Apocrypha canonical and did not use them to support any point of dogma, they were still combined as a separate collection in the Bible, bound between the Old and the New Testament. But there was a growing opposition in Protestant circles, which found strong expression in a remark by Lightfoot. PFF1 84.7

“In a sermon preached before the House of Commons in 1643 the well—known scholar Lightfoot complained of the custom of printing the Apocrypha between the books of the Old and New Testament.’Thus sweetly and nearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus divinely would they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth thrust in between.’ ‘Like the two cherubins in the temple—oracle,’ the end of the Law and the beginning of the Gospel would touch one another, did not this patchery of human invention divorce them asunder.’” ³⁶ PFF1 84.8

5. EVIDENCE ON APOCRYPHA SUMMARIZED

We therefore conclude that these Apocryphal works are not canonical, as evidenced by the following considerations: PFF1 85.1

(1) The original Hebrew Bible does not include them, though in Old Testament times the oracles of God were committed to the Jews. Romans 3:2 PFF1 85.2

(2) There is no conclusive evidence that any of them were composed originally in the Hebrew language. Certainly almost all of them, probably all, were written originally in the Greek, which was not employed by the Jews until after the penning of their inspired writings had ceased, and the canon of the Old Testament had been closed. PFF1 85.3

(3) Only the Old Testament as the Protestants now have it (but numbered as either twenty—two or twenty—four books) was received as inspired in the Hebrew canon. The Apocryphal additions in the Septuagint were never officially sanctioned by the Jews, and have been completely rejected by them through many centuries to the present day. 20 B.C. TO c. A.D. 50) spoke against adding to the law of Moses, and Josephus (d. c. A.D. 100) expressly declared, “Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty.” ³⁷ PFF1 85.4

(4) There is silence respecting these writings in the New Testament. They are never quoted by Christ and the apostles. ³⁸ PFF1 85.5

(5) The writers of the Apocrypha sometimes claim inspiration, and confess to a lack of the prophetic gift. (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41.) PFF1 85.6

(6) The Apocrypha teaches doctrines at variance with the Scriptures—superstitious quackery, deceit, purgatory, reincarnation, and prayers for any of the dead. (Judith 9:10; Tobit 5:12, 13; 6:1-8; Wisdom 8:19, 20; Baruch 3:4; 2 Macc. 12:43-46.) PFF1 85.7

(7) The Apocrypha contains historical errors, inconsistencies, and fictitious stories and events. (For example: 1 Maccabees 8; Additions to Esther 11:2-4; Bel and the Dragon.) PFF1 85.8