How We Got the Bible #6 Having already considered: Having Faith in God’s Word as Divine, Complete,...

How We Got the Bible #6Having already considered:

Having Faith in God’s Word as Divine, Complete, & Authoritative

Collection, Arrangement, & Languages of the Books

Textual Criticism- Manuscripts & Variants

The ‘Canon’ of the Scriptures

Now we’re ready for our final two lessons on

“The Apocrypha”

How We Got the Bible #6 The Apocrypha

• Remember two key points from our last lesson on The Canon of the Scriptures:

(1) Did the work claim to be and wasit accepted by the early churchas inspired? And,

(2) Was it written by either an Apostleor Personal Disciple of Jesus?

• These two encapsulate the canonical tests.


• Several other points need to be reemphasized:-Canonicity only became important in about the middle of the second

century as spurious writings (psuedopigraphic) and the death of a generation once removed from the Apostles forced the issue.

-But we must remember that the Bible does not attain its authorityfrom any group, council, or church.

-Although the church was instrumental in the formation of the Canon,authority for the scriptures came from within the inspiration

of the books themselves!

-The church simply recognized, accepted, and proclaimed the authorityof the scriptures as being from God not man.


Do you remember the story in 1Samuel 3:16-28 of the two harlots who both claimed to be the mother of the infant son?

What if the child had been older?

He could have identified his own mother for Solomon, right?

It is the same with the church and the scriptures.

The church simply identified its mother through the process of canonization of the scriptures!


It is through this process of identifying authoritatively inspired scriptures that the others are necessarily excluded-

Thus, the Apocrypha!

Those spurious writings, rejected by the church of the first and second centuries as not being that

from which it came, are the Apocrypha.

The difficulty is this: others since then have endeavored to include these writings as scripture.


• “Apocrypha” means hidden, or secret.-Initially, the name had no bearing on the canon but onbooks that were secret.

-It appears that they were considered secret because of thehigh regard the false religion of Gnosticism (and

other mystery religions) had for them- tainted by association so to speak.

-But as the canon became more complete, these books wererejected, and “Apocrypha” came to more associated with heretical origin and content.


• There were discussions and debates on these Apocryphals as early as 393 (Hippo) and 397 A.D. (Carthage).

• But by 1546 (Council of Trente), the Roman Catholic Church decided to regard some of them as deutero-canonical (or second canon) stating that they too were to be accepted as “scripture”.

• For the most part, these apocryphal books were written between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.


• This time causes a major problem for the books.

-Consider Mal.3:1 & 4:4-5 relative Matt.11:7-14.

-Micah 3:5-8 and Zech.13:2 also indicate that there wouldbe a period of “silence” from God that seems to fit

the Malachi to John time frame.

-While canonical N.T. books were certainly written from~50 A.D. to ~97 A.D., certainly no O.T. books werebeing legitimately produced by inspiration!

Herein lies a major problem with the books:

they purport to be from God and yet God had said He would not speak during the time they were written!


• So, which books did Roman Catholicism seek to canonize?

1-2 Esdras (Greek form of “Ezra”) a.k.a. 3rd Esdras & 4th

Esdras respectively (following canonical Ezra & Neh.)

Tobit Judith The Additions to the Book of Esther

The Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus, or TheWisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach

Baruch The Letter of Jeremiah (sometimes included as the last chapter of Baruch)

The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the 3 Young Men


• Also:

Susanna

Bel and the Dragon

The Prayer of Manasseh

The First Book of Maccabees

The Second Book of Maccabees

• These comprise the 14 or 15 books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (depending upon how they are arranged).


• There is an Arrangement of these books which needs to be considered:

-added to Jeremiah: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon,Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

-added to Esther: The Additions to Esther.

-appended to Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah and the ThreeYoung Men (inserted after Dan.3:23), Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.


• Classification of these books may also be helpful:

Historical- 1Esdras, 1 & 2Maccabees

Legendary- Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah & Song of the Three Young

Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon).

Prophetic- Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer ofManasseh, 2Esdras

Ethical- Ecclesiasticus, and The Wisdom of Solomon


Overview of the Contents of these Books:• Historical-

1Esdras is an ill-arranged plagiarism of much of the content of Ezra. It likewise includes worthless and legendary accounts which cannot

be verified from Ezra, Nehemiah, or 2Chronicles though they are written concerning the same time period.

1Maccabees is an important source of Jewish history from the secondcentury B.C. It derives its name from the surname of the principlecharacter, Judas. He led the Jews in a successful revolt against Syrianoppression.

Although 2Maccabees is about the same general period, it is not ashistorically accurate as 1Maccabees.


• Legendary-

The Book of Tobit was written around 200 B.C. and supposes to tell the story of a religious Israelite (named Tobit) who was carried away

as a captive to Ninevah by the Assyrians. Although its purpose isapparently to encourage faithfulness to the Law of Moses, the

main character is purely fictitious and therefore detracts from theusefulness of the book.

Judith is likewise pure fiction. Judith is the name of a Jewish widow whosuccessfully charms and kills the leader of an enemy army andthereby saves her city and people from impending doom anddestruction. Nice story- if it were true- it isn’t. It was likelycomposed during the Maccabean revolt to inspire courage andheroism against the Syrians.


• Legendary- (cont.)

The Additions to Esther are expansions of the legitimate (canonical) bookof Esther. These were likely handed down oral traditions whichmanaged to survive through the centuries, though not inspired.

The Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the ThreeYoung Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon) contain basicallyfolk-tales and legends which could not have originated much earlierthan 100 B.C. They in no way form any part of the inspired book ofDaniel.


• Prophetic-

Baruch supposes to come from the hand of Jeremiah’s friend of that name.Baruch was indeed Jeremiah’s trusted friend, devoted disciple,

and scribe, cf Jer.36:14-19. But the actual contents of the book make his authorship impossible and actually fix the date of the writing

sometime after A.D.70. It is therefore a forgery and a fake.

The Letter of Jeremiah is sometimes appended to Baruch, though theonly apparent reason for it is the false claim that Baruch is written byJeremiah’s scribe. It is a brief dispatch on the vanities of idolatry.Perhaps this is a noble aim, but does not make the work inspired.


• Prophetic- (cont.)

The Prayer of Manasseh, recorded perhaps during the second century B.C. and is supposedly a prayer uttered by the mouth of King

Manasseh after he was taken captive into Babylon. 2Kings 21:1-17 describes Manasseh as one of if not the most wicked king of Judah, and v.18 says that he died and was buried in buried in his own house. However, 2Chron.33:9-13 also records that the Lord

humbled him by allowing the Assyrians to capture him and take him away with “hooks” (in his nose) to Babylon. There he repented and prayed to God. God heard his prayer and brought him to Jerusalem again. But, there appears to be no biblical record of his actual prayer, cf. vv.18-19 Obviously, this apocryphal book claims to be that record. Maybe it is, but such does not make it inspired.


• Prophetic- (cont.)

2Esdras is a collection of materials written anywhere between 100 B.C. -A.D.200. The contents demand that it is unquestionably non-canonical.


• Ethical-

Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach is one of theprimary works of the Apocrypha. It was written by a Jew fromPalestine about 200 B.C. The style is similar to that of Proverbs.

The Wisdom of Solomon is also a book of ancient Jewish philosophy more than inspired revelation. It is apparently has roots back toAlexandria (Egypt) in the first century (A.D.). Although these booksespecially may be true representations of divine thought, they are notinspired. It would be similar to someone today writing a sermonoutlining basic moral righteousness- it might true to the word of God in all that it teaches, but that in and of itself does not make it inspired and therefore authoritative (canonical).


• Why these books are/should be Rejected as canonical (legitimately part of the O.T.)

-These books were never included in the Hebrew canon of the O.T. inthe period immediately following its closure. Josephus, first

century Jewish historian, expressly limited the O.T. text to 22 books (which directly correspond to our English arrangement of 39 books).

Josephus certainly knew of these other writings but never considered them as on par with other scripture. Thus, the Apocrypha was never accepted by the Jews as a part of the O.T. Remember that the O.T. is a collection of Jewish history and law and yet they themselves reject the Apocrypha!


• Rejected (cont.)-These books were never accepted by Jesus or His Apostles. Many O.T.prophecies and passages were quoted and utilized in the N.T. but none of the Apocrypha was ever so quoted or utilized. Likewise, none of the characters nor events of the Apocrypha are ever mentioned in the N.T. Thus the canon of the O.T. accepted by Jesus and His Apostles should be sufficient for us today. (cf. Luke 24:44)

-These books were rejected by Jerome, the great Christian scholar. About A.D. 400 he strongly maintained that these works were even then to be rejected and excluded from the text. What is interesting about this is that it was his translation of the Latin Vulgate text which the Roman Catholic Church (the chief promoters of the Apocrypha) adopted as the basis for

their Bible.


• Rejected (cont.)

-These books do not have intrinsic evidence of inspiration. Great portions of these books are obviously legendary and fictitious.

For example, in Judith, a man named Holofernes is described as being the general of “Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Ninevah” (Judith 1:1). The problem is that

Nebuchadnezzar was actually the Babylonian king who conquered and carried away captive the two southern tribes of

Judah.



-These books have been continually questioned and never universally accepted. This is in stark contrast the both the Old and New Testament canons which are, other than these exceptions, notquestioned nor have been for centuries. Since these books were

not legitimized by the Jews, obviously their support had to come fromelsewhere. This recognition ultimately came from some segments

of the Greek speaking church with the result that they were eventually adopted into both the Greek and Latin Bibles. But even within the early Greek manuscripts of the O.T., no two of them agree as to which portions of the Apocrypha are to be excluded and included.



Likewise not all of the apocryphal books included with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the O.T.) were adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. So even among those in favor of the Apocrypha’s inclusion within the text, no two can agree as to which ones should be included. In fact, the Septuagint itself is a witness against one of the Apocryphal books, 2Esdras, since it is found in

no manuscript of the Septuagint.



-These books cannot be maintained on a compromise basis. The Church of England gives the Apocrypha a semi-canonical status; i.e.they may be read in public worship services “for example of life andinstruction of manners” but not in order to “establish any doctrine”.This position assumes some flaw or failing within the works-otherwise they could be used for doctrine. If they are flawed orpossess some corrupt failing, then they must be rejected from thecanon.



-These books have objections to them which cannot be overruled by Dictatorial Authority. In the Fourth Session of the Council of

Trent, the Roman Catholic Church declared the Apocrypha as authoritative and therefore canonical scripture- with the exceptions of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. This was despite the fact that for different preceding periods of Roman Catholic history, the church had been very outspoken against the Apocrypha. Such things are not

unnatural for a religious body whose whole structure is derived much more from traditions, “popes,” and “fathers” than from scripture.



The long and the short of it is that the Apocrypha would haveapparently never posed any serious problems had the Roman

Catholic Church not have already usurped authority from the scriptures andthen sought to “steer” them in certain directions. But the

proposed “infallibility” of the Roman Catholic Church and its

Popes cannot make the obviously fallible Apocrypha infallible.



-These books teach doctrines and encourage practices which arecontrary to the inspired biblical text. For instance, the book ofTobit 6:4-17 contains a fanciful story of an angel instructing a

young man to practice what appears to be magical spells in an effort to cast demons from a woman whom is about to marry. Other practices

encouraged within the Apocrypha are lying, assassination, salvation by almsgiving, suicide, etc. Such things are in clear

contradiction to biblical teaching.



-None of the OT apocryphal writers make direct claims to inspiration. Remember the time of writing for these books- between 200 B.C.

and A.D.200. Now think. When did the canon of the Hebrew O.T. close according scripture and for what reason? God’s prophetic word

ended with the prophet Malachi and the people left with no wordfrom God until John the Baptist’s appearance and proclamation ofpreparation for the Messiah (cf. Mal.3:1; 4:4-5 > Matt.11:7-14).

Thus from Malachi to John no prophet spoke from God because none was inspired by Him. So what does that tell you about the authority of the works of the Apocrypha which were written during this period and which some have tried to tack-on the Hebrew O.T.?


• Conclusion:

Whether Old or New Testament Apocrypha, these works simply do not measure up to the standard of Scripture.

The writings and those who are unduly attached to them remind us of the passage in 1Tim.1:4 where Timothy is admonished to “pay no attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.”

The faith here spoken of has but one source, Rom.10:17.

How We Got the Bible #7

The New Testament Apocrypha

How We Got the Bible #7New Testament Apocrypha

As there are books claimed by some to be the hidden part of the Old

Testament,

So also there are those which are claimed to be part of the New

Testament.


• The Character of these books:Psuedonymity- written under assumed names.

They usually utilize the name of one of theApostles, other personal disciples of Christ, or some other

prominent person of the first or second century.

Symbolic- they use a lot of symbolic imagery.

Apocalyptic- many express expectations of animmenent cosmic cataclysm in which Goddestroys the evil ruling powers and elevatesthe righteous to life in a messianic kingdom.


• The Character of these books: (cont.)

Mostly, they contain fanciful tales about Jesus andthe Apostles- the untold stories of the Bible.

They tend to portray Jesus as a temperamentalchild who would use His divine power to causethe death of a playmate or give life to a driedup fish (and the like).


• The Categories/Classifications of these books:-Gospels (pertaining to Jesus)

-Acts (untold stories about the 12 and otherdisciples)

-Epistles (letters purported to be by one ofthe Apostles or other close disciples)

-Apocalypses (stories of cosmic cataclysm)


• Important Side Note:The writings of the Apostolic Fathers (A.D.

80- 180) are not part of the New Testament Apocrypha.

These were/are simply letters which werewritten to edify and encourageChristians of that time period.

They do not profess to be from the Apostles or inspiration.


• The Apocryphal Gospels:Seem to be seeking to meet contemporary needs and imaginations by supplying additional details about the life of Jesus. Such as:

-more specific details of His birth

-stories about His youth (on which the Bible isconspicuously vacant)

-and post-resurrection revelations.

Interestingly enough, few of them contain stories regarding Jesus’ death.


• The Apocryphal Gospels:These garner a good deal of attention from those seeking agrapha (authentic sayings of Jesus not contained in the New Testament).

Some of the more notable books are:The Protoevangelium of James The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Peter The Gospel of Nicodemus

The Gospel of the Nazoreans The Gospel of the Ebionites

The Gospel of the Hebrews The Gospel of the Egyptians

The Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Philip

and The Gospel of Mary


• The Apocryphal Acts

These can be broken down into two basic groups:

1. earlier works sometimes attributed to LeuciusCharinus; and

2. all the rest.

By far, the first group attracts the most attention + / -.

Though interrelated, they seem to have come fromdifferent locations and theological thoughts,

including Gnosticism.


• The Apocryphal Acts

The common threads in these seem to be as follows:

-insistence on sexual asceticism (cf. Col.2:23/1Tim.4:3)

-a fascination with fantastical tales (like obedient bed bugs, talking colts, and a baptized lion! )

-and curiosity and supposition about the Apostle’sdeaths.


• The Apocryphal ActsThe earlier (Leucian) Acts are:

The Acts of John, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of Paul, The Acts of Andrew, and The Acts of Thomas.

The other Acts include:

The Acts of Andrew & Matthias The Acts of Philip

The Acts of Thaddeus The Acts of Peter & Paul

The Acts of Peter & Andrew The Martyrdom of Matthew

The Slavonic Act of Peter and

The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.


• The Apocryphal Epistles.

-Of the four classifications being considered (Gospels, Acts,Epistles, and Apocalypses) these seem to be the

least popular- probably due to their pseudonimity.

-They include:

Third Corinthians The Epistle to the Laodiceans

The Letters of Paul & Seneca The Letters of Jesus & Abgar

The Letter of Lentulus The Epistle of Titus


• The Apocryphal Apocalypses.

-All of these (obviously excepting the NT Revelation)claim to be divine revelations to a biblical hero.

-But all (still excepting Revelation) are fakes in thatthey are not written by the person claimed-pseudonymous.

-Their favorite themes seem to be:

The Means of Salvation Ethics

Historical Destiny and Graphic Depictions of Heaven & Hell


• The Apocryphal Apocalypses are:The Apocalypse of Peter The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Paul The First Apocalypse of James

The Second Apocalypse of James

The Acropcryphon of John The Sophia of Jesus Christ

The Letter of Peter to Philip The Apocalypse of Mary


• Conclusions:1. Please don’t ask me anything further about this- I’ve told

you just about all I know!

2. Why consider all this stuff ???

-To give you some basic knowledge about extra-biblicalwritings and why they are extra-biblical.

-By realizing how much stuff is out there, it is hopedthat your confidence in what is in there

(in the Bible) is built up.

-To help us all realize the importance of the biblical text and why its important- it came from God!

How We Got the Bible #6 Having already considered: Having Faith in God’s Word as Divine, Complete,...

Documents

Transcript of How We Got the Bible #6 Having already considered: Having Faith in God’s Word as Divine, Complete,...