When you have read and studied the Word of God for years, it becomes very evident when you're reading myth and when you're reading Scripture. The Holy Bible is a work written by various men over a period of thousands of years:

2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

     All the Books of our Bible "interlock", with one text or Book aiding the interpretation of other texts or Books. The Spirit showed me the interlocking system of the Scripture years ago, as He has shown many others before me. In fact, I use this method of Bible study, allowing "Scripture to interpret Scripture", because I have found this to be the best way to understand the truths represented in the Bible.

     Since Scripture is, in fact, written by only One Author (God the Holy Spirit), then the doctrine presented will always be consistent. If I come across a work claimed to be Scriptural that "does not" uphold the interlocking standard found in the Bible, then I have no choice but to decide the work is false. The Apocrypha just fails to measure up with the known Canon (historically accepted as true) of Scripture.

     First, I do not believe that there are errors in Scripture. I believe that the Author, who is Holy and Pure, "would not condone error in His Scripture". Yet the Apocrypha contains "glaring errors" that cannot be explained away.

     In the Book of Tobit, Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1:3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then "Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing". Yet Tobit 14:11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. To me, "that's a big error". But even if we discard this as "just a slip", Tobit 14:5 declares that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically "never happened". I am sure that God knows history, since He sees it all from eternity past. "Tobit cannot be Scriptural".

Tobit also endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons. Again, I quote:

"Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.."

     2 Maccabees is even more interesting. In 2 Maccabees 14:41-46 "suicide is justified", a thing you would not find in Scripture. I quote:

"..Choosing rather to die manfully, than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise than beseemed his noble birth ... he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his hands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those again, he thus died.."

     2 Maccabees 12.41-45 teaches "prayer for the dead as a means to bring them to salvation". This is totally contrary to Scripture, as illustrated by Jesus' story of the Rich man and Lazarus:

Luke 16:24-31 "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "

     Jesus made it plain that He knew that there "is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence". You cannot pray someone out of Hell, they are permanent residents in that awful place because they rejected Christ as Savior when it mattered. God has a chasm between Heaven and Hell to separate the two, and none shall "pass over" because the living pray for it.

     Ecclesiasticus 3:30 tells us that we can "buy our way into Heaven". This is totally contrary to God's Word (John 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). I quote Ecclesiasticus:

"Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh an atonement for sins."

.. while Ecclesiasticus 33:26-28 tells us that it is fine to torture your servants. Again, I quote:

"A yoke and a collar do bow the neck; so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him: if he be not obedient, put on more heavy fetters.."

     In the New Testament Book of Philemon Paul begs the owner of the runaway slave Onesimus to be charitable, to receive him back as a newly converted Christian, but "not to beat or punish him". Paul tells Philemon:

Philemon 1:10-16 "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? "

     Which sounds more like God's Word to you? "Beat the runaway slave, torture him", or "receive him back in love as a brother"? Ecclesiasticus bears the mark of the world, not of the Word.

     The Wisdom of Solomon is also a rather strange work. In Wisdom Of Solomon 7:25 we are treated to the doctrine of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that, once you accepted Christ as Savior, you were "free to sin with impunity: because it was, after all, paid for on the Cross. The Gnostics (their name means, "To Know") believed that just the knowledge of the holy was sufficient. It was the Gnostics that caused God to inspire James to write:

James 2:20-26 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. "

     Just knowledge of the holy is not enough. If your faith did not create a change in you, if you did not become a "new creature in Christ" after salvation, you are still lost my friend. If your knowledge does not show evidence of a changed life you are still dead in your sins. Gnosticism is just another name for cultic, and it is supported by the writings of Wisdom of Solomon.

     Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 teaches the doctrine of reincarnation, something totally outside of the Biblical teachings. I quote:

"..For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.."

     The Bible does not teach reincarnation, nor the pre-existence of the human soul. This, too, is a false work, totally unScriptural.

     In reality, the Apocryphal Books were "never" excluded from the Old Testament Canon of Scripture "because they were never a part of the Canon".

     The Jews, who were God's chosen to keep the Old Testament Scriptures, "never" accepted any of the Apocryphal Books as Scriptural. When I say "never" I mean they disregarded them from the beginning of the collection of the Scriptures up until today. This exclusion weighed heavily against the Church accepting the Apocrypha as Scriptural.

     Other than the obvious defects (which we mentioned above) the Jews rejected the Apocrypha because "none of the works were written by Prophets". All of the Old Testament Canon, with a few exceptions, was written by people who either had the Gift or Office of Prophet. Of the few that did not fit this category, like Esther, the book contained enough historical and Scriptural accuracy for the Jews to determine it to be Canonical.

     The Apocrypha contains numerous historical, geographical, and chronological errors, so many that God's Chosen rejected the books outright. In addition to this, unlike most Canonized Works (Deuteronomy 31.24-26; Nehemiah 8.1-8; Joshua 1.8; Judges 3.4; Daniel 12.2; 9.2; Jeremiah 36; 2 King 22-23; Nehemiah 8.5), the "Apocrypha never claimed to be the Inspired Word of God". They were merely "recountings", never claiming Divine Inspiration for themselves. I quote from 2 Maccabees 2:24-32:

"All such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read, ..And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief ... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement."

And from 2 Maccabees 15:39-40 we read:

"I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it  becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..."

This sounds more like someone who wrote a diary, not the Word of God!

     The Jewish Old Testament was originally bound in a scroll of  24 books, and the "Apocrypha was never bound with these books". The Jews divided the Bible as:

• The Law (Torah) - 5 Books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

• The Prophets (Nebhiim) - 8 Books
  • The former prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
  • The latter prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve

• The Writings (Kethubhim) - 11 Books
  • Poetical books - Psalms, Job, Proverbs
  • Five rolls (Megilloth) - Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther
  • Historical books - Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

     The Apocrypha was never counted among this Holy Division. Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books, rather than the traditional 24. He writes:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be Divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own 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, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8)

     Artaxerxes and Malachi both lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ. Josephus expressed the common belief of the Jews that "no Scripture was written after the time of Artaxerxes".  The Jewish Talmus also teaches that the Spirit of God departed from Israel insofar as Scriptural Writing is concerned after the time of Malachi. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C .- A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament frequently,  recognizing the Jewish threefold division, but never quoted from the Apocrypha "as inspired". The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 70) "did not even recognize" the Apocrypha. So was the Apocrypha ever "removed" from the Canon? No, it was "never in" the Canon, as far as the keepers of the Old Testament were concerned.

     What about the New Testament Church? If we throw out the argument that the Jews, who were chosen by God to carry His Word, disregarded the Apocrypha, then did the early Church regard these writings as "God Breathed"? Actually, the early Church literally "ignored the Apocrypha". There are 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to "any" of the the Apocryphal writings.

     Jesus and His Apostles quoted extensively from the Old Testament, but "never" from the Apocrypha. Melito, the Bishop of Sardis (170 A.D.), referred to the Old Testament Canon and "specifically excluded" the Apocrypha. One of the earliest Church Fathers, Origen (185-254 AD) "explicitly described" the Old Testament Canon, as accepted by the Church, as the 22 Jewish Books. Athanasius looked at the Apocryphal writings of  Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom Of Solomon and wrote:

"For the sake of greater accuracy ... there are other books outside these [books] which are not indeed included in the canon" (39th festal letter, 367 A.D.)

     Jerome, the main translator of the Latin Vulgate, in 395 AD specified that "any books which fell outside of the traditional Hebrew Bible" should be considered Apocryphal. He said the Apocryphal books "are not in the Canon". Jerome wrote that the Apocrypha was:

".. for edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."

     Jerome disagreed with Augustine (who considered the writings inspired) about the Apocrypha, and at first refused to even translate them into Latin. He later relented, though he was adamant that the books were "uninspired". "After his death" the Apocryphal books were included in the Latin Vulgate.

In 1140 A.D., Hugo of St. Victor wrote:

"There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read but are not inscribed ... in the canon of authority"

     Even among Protestants the Apocrypha, though considered non-Canon, were read as interesting works. The Great Reformer John Calvin wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those"[Apocryphal] books", though he objected to "placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with inspired Scripture" (Antidote to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68).

     Martin Luther, another Great Reformer,  placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible. He described them as "Books which are not to be held equal to Holy Scripture, but are useful and good to read."

     So the Apocryphal writings were "never in the Canon" in the first place. How did they get in Canon among the Roman Catholic believers?

     Even though the overwhelming evidence pointed to the fact that the Apocrypha was not Canon, even though the Christian Church in it's first four centuries rejected these writings as spurious, if you "get enough committee votes, we can make it happen".

     Augustine (354-430 AD) pushed the Apocrypha as Scripture over the objections of Jerome, and the Roman Church included it in the Latin Vulgate. Once these writings were tacked into place next to the Holy Scriptures many people became to regard them as Scriptural by association. The Church had sporadic battles, often localized, about the Apocrypha, up until the time of the Reformation when the Protestants banded together in a concerted effort to reject these works. The Roman Catholic Church made it's views clear at the Council of Trent (1546) when it stated that "all of the Latin Vulgate" (to include the Apocrypha) was equally Canon. The doctrine was re-affirmed at the Vatican Council of 1870. Jerome probably rolled over in his grave!

     The Wycliffite Bible (14th century) included the Apocrypha, but in it's preface made it clear that it accepted Jerome's judgement, not Augustine's. The Church of England (1562) explicitly denied the Apocrypha as Canon, though admitted that the books could be read for their "didactic worth" (Article IV). The King James Bible of 1611 put the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, but omitted it from all versions from 1630 and on. The Westminister Confession of the Presbyterians decreed the Apocrypha to be no part of the Scripture. The British and Foreign Bible Society of 1827 resolved "never" to print or circulate Bibles that contained the Apocrypha.

     So, is the Apocrypha Scriptural? "Absolutely not. Can you read it? Certainly, be my guest. I've read through it, and found it very interesting. "But Scriptural? No, no, a thousand times no! Read it yourself, then read the "real Word of God". If you're in Christ you'll see the difference.

---

Basic Training Systematic Theology Statement of Faith Our Mission Link To Us Heaven?

---

Send E-mail to Russ:
webslave for Christ
( Click Here )
with questions or comments about this web site and it's content.
Last modified: 4/9/2007