Jovial

Numerous claims about the Apocrypha that were historically inaccurate where made at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/pastorbob831-7.htm . In fact, getting past the opinion claims and isolated just the factual ones, I have counted below at least 11 assertions of historical facts that are erroneous, and easily refuted by simply quoting the sources he cites to prove the allegations wrong. I did not even have to rely on a competing source that disagrees!!!!

Claim made

Truth

Not one of the books referred to, as the Apocrypa, were in the Hebrew language. All but one, was in Greek, and the lone exception was in Latin.
Many Apocryphal books  WERE written in Hebrew. Some had not been preserved in Hebrew. I gave an example from Esdras at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/jovial83.htm of how it is clear Esdras must have been written in Hebrew. It was rejected by Jews because it foretells the Gospel too explicitely, but mostly accepted by the early Church, since it was quoted in various early Church writings. All of the New Testament was rejected by this same group.

I have a copy of 1 Macabees in Hebrew from the DSS. Enoch was definitely written in Hebrew, but only preserved in a slavic language, but not in Greek or Latin. Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enoch was accepted by the Essenes as Scripture, though they omited one of the other books the Pharisees accepted. It was either Kings or Chronicles, but I forget which. The King James follows the Pharisaic canon, rather than the Essene canon.

Some books probably were NOT written in Hebrew, such as 4 Macabees. I have not investigated ALL of them on that issue, since for the most part, most of them are not important enough.

Not one claims to be divinely inspired, or from the Creator
Some examples to the contrary include;

2 Esdras 1:4 starts off by saying, "And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying...." that is definitely a claim of Divine inspiration.
The Letter of Jeremiah begins by saying, "A copy of an epistle, which Jeremy sent unto them which were to be led captives into Babylon by the king of the Babylonians, to certify them, as it was commanded him of God." So again, that claims to be Divinely inspired.
In Sirach 24, it says, "I will again pour out teaching like prophecy". So yes, Sirach claims to be a prophetic work.

Many of the Apocryphal books do NOT claim to be divinely inspired. The first 5 books of the Bible do not claim to be written by God or Moses. Neither does Judges, Chronicles, and many other books we have accepted as canon. But the claim of "not one" is false. I have provided 3 examples.

These books were never sanctioned or acknowledged as Sacred Scriptures by the Jewish religious community, and certainly never sanctioned by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Which Jewish community? Are you saying you consider the canon of the Pharisees more important than the other sects? We know the canon of the Pharisees, the Essenes and the Samaritans. We don't know the canon of the ancient Galileans or several other sects.

We don't have Yeshua's commentary on these texts. However, many things Yeshua cited in Matthew 24 are mentioned in Esdras, which was written before Matthew.

The church for the first four centuries (400 years) did not include, or allow the Apocrypha works to be accepted as Canon
FALSE: Irenius, The Didache, Barnabas, Ephraim all quote Esdras. 1 Clement quotes the Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, 12:12, an apocryphal book of Moses. Polycarp quotes from Tobias 4:10. Barnabas quotes from Enoch 89:56-66 - a rather long passage. I could probably go on and on. I pulled these examples out of a quick skim of the footnotes to several works from the 1st and 2nd century AD. You should read them instead of making wild unsupportable claims about what they do or do not say.

The Bible itself has 22 quotes from Apocryphal works, 6 times in the New Testament.

The Apocrypha contained fables, statements, which contradicted not only the Canonical Scriptures but themselves as well. A "fable" is a historical account someone choses to reject. 1 Mac and 2 Mac contradict on how Antiochus died, but they had different authors. Many people have problems with Tobias. Of course, to reject EVERY book of the Apocrypha because this one or that one should be rejected is not the scholarly way to think. Each book should get its own cross examination.

It teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, assassination and theological incantations. Does the Bible teach suicide and assassination by recording Sampson's death? Or is it just recording that it happened? Similarly, the mere fact that the Apocrypha records that something happened does not mean it is advocating it. I have heard of many skeptics claim the Bible promotes suicide and assassination are OK because it records Sampson's death.

It teaches doctrines of variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead (this is the basis for why the Roman Catholic Church prays for the dead) and sinless perfection The above would apply to this as well.

We will have the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul in the Book of Wisdom.
Where does it say that? I have heard people quote from Hebrews 7:15 and use it to advocate the idea of the pre-existance of the soul. Why would that issue be a problem? Would it matter if you DID exist before you were born? Or before conception? Do you see a verse in Scripture you think disproves that interpretation of of Hebrews 7:15?

We will have the doctrine of alms-giving to purge sin - buying of indulgences also from the book of Tobias.We will have magic instead of miracles
Please cite examples. It is easy to make wild sweeping claims. Wild claims unsupported by actual quotations and analysis are often the result of several forms of false thinking and analysis. Sometimes they are a result of having not ever read the books to begin with.

The book of Ecclesiasticus teaches that much prayer will bring pardon.

Prove your claim. Quote the passage and explain why you think it teaches this.

All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not of Jewish origin.

The LXX was translated before Christianity existed. So no, that is wrong. Of course, most Jews did not favor the idea of translating the Scriptures and felt all Jews should simply learn Hebrew. But there were Jews in Greek speaking circles who accepted it. Philo quotes from the LXX, and in some cases, quotes LXX readings that disagree with the original Hebrew, showing no sign he is familiar with the Hebrew text being different.

The manuscripts of the Dead Sea makes it clear no Canonical book of the Old Testament was written later than the Persian period

Wrong. There are copies of the Apocryphal books in the DSS.

Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the 'three-fold classification', but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired writings

Many people believe he does. He never says, "Thus sayeth the apocrypha", but he is attributed as quotes SOMETHING without identifying the source, with that something probably being the Apocrypha , by many writers. Among those alleged quotes are;

Wisdom 3:16 and Wisdom 7:26 in On the confusion of Tongues, 28, i. 426 and 427
Wisdom 7:1 in De Nobilitate, § 3, ii. 439
Ecclus. 92:15 and 94:16 in On the Life of Moses, § 51, ii. 125 and On Abraham § 3, ii. 4

This is only a partial list. He never gives those books as the source he is quoting. But one would get the impression he probably read the Apocrypha, quoted things he read in it, but did not attribute it as his source.

Josephus (30-100 AD), a Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the Apocryphal books as Scripture.

Wrong. He does indeed quote from Macabees. I am not sure how much else he quotes, however , he was a historian, not a theologian, and would have mostly only quoted from it for historical reasons.

Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism says "Antiquities 12.272-77 largely follows 1 Macabees 2.29-41"
http://www.josephus.org/hanukkah.htm has this to say "The Books of the Maccabees, which record the origins of the Hanukkah story and of the Hasmonean dynasty, are represented by Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities, Book 12 Chapter 5 through Book 13 Chapter 7. These chapters are primarily a compressed version of the First Book of Maccabees, supplemented by some material from the Second Book of Maccabees War 1 37-47, with some additional changes made by Josephus. An even more condensed version appears in the Jewish War, Book 1 Chapters 3-6"

It goes on to talk about how Josephus quotes extensively from a speach given by Judas Macabee from 1 Mac, but changes it. However, the author at that web site may have failed to take into account that translation may be at stake in why the texts read differently.

Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament

In a separate post I will provide 22 quotes from Non-Biblical books, including the Apocrypha, that are in the Bible. 6 are in the New Testament. I also demonstrated this to be false at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/jovial817-3.htm where I showed many places in the New Testament that parallel Esdras and say the same thing as Esdras, while not actually quoting it as a source.

Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha - for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius

Where did these men "speak against" it?   You should QUOTE these men, not make unsupportable claims. Quoting them shows the contrary.

Origen accepted Apocryphal writings as Scripture in the following;

In To Africanus, 5, Origen quotes from the Apocryphal Susanna / Bel and the Dragon and calls it "Scripture".
In Against Celsus, 7:12, Origen quotes from Sirach 21:18 and calls in "Sacred Scripture".
In Against Celsus, 5:19, Origen quotes from Tobit 12:7 In To Africanus 13, he quotes from Tobias again and says, "since the Church uses Tobias...."
In Fundamental Principles, 2:2, Origen quotes from 2 Mac 7:28 and calls it Scripture, introducing it this way, " we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees" . That certainly isn't "speaking against" it as Pastor Bob alleged.
In Fundamental Principles, 2:2, he quotes from Wisdom 11:17, but acknowledges that it is "not esteemed by all".
Eusebius records Origen's citation of canon. Origen is listing the JEWISH canon, not his personal opinion of what is canon. In it, he adds Macabees to the canon, suggesting he considers it authoritative, though not part of the Jewish canon. He also lists BARUCH, one of the books of the Apocrypha, as among the "22 books" of Jewish canon. The reality is that the "22 books" where not really divided the same way we do. Jeremiah, Lamentations and Baruch, from the Apocrypha, were all considered part of ONE book by Origen's counting, not 3 books. It was basically 1 "book" to go with each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The "22 books" were a division , not an enumeration of sources. Ezra and Nehehmiah were considered part of the same work, despite the fact they are two different sources.

Athanasius had this to say;

"that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read..." Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39

Note that he calls "the former" = "Wisdom, Esther, Judith, Tobit" as "canon" and the Didache and Shepherd of Meres as not canon. that is hardly "speaking against" it. He indeed states that he affirms the canonization of Sirach,Esther, Judith, and Tobit. He is rejecting New Testament Apocrypha, while accepting the Apocrypha of the Tanach (Old Testament).

Cyril had a mixed opinion. He encouraged people to study those parts of the Apocrypha that were read publicly, but to not read the rest on your own. This can be found in Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4:35.

Jerome (340-420 AD), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon

Jerome translated the Apocrypha and included it in the Vulgate.

Jerome had this to say, "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2]" Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108   So here, Jerome calls Sirach "Scripture" and uses it to prove a point, as if he expected his reader to accept it as well. There are other places where he makes similar quotes from the Apocrypha as "Scripture", including

Jerome quotes Wisdom 4:9 in To Paulinus, Epistle 58
Quotes Baruch 5:5 in To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4
Quotes Baruch 6  in To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2
Quotes Sirach 27:5 in  To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 and also in Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 , where he also quotes Sir. 2:1
Quotes Wisdom 2:23 in Letter 51, 6, 7,
Quotes Sirach 3:21 in Against the Pelagians
Quotes Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45 in Letter 1:9
Quotes Judith 13:8 in to Salvina, Letter 79:10

This is only a partial list.  If he rejected it, why did he quote so much from it and call it Scripture? Why did he quote it and call it "Scripture"?

Elsewhere, in his preface to his translation of the Apocrypha, Jeromes does say the Church did not accept it as canon, but did not comment on whether he agreed with that opinion. It would seem from his personal letters that he personally disagreed with that position. He also encouraged people to read the Apocrypha. Here are his exact words;

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people."

He did not say that HE did not accept them as canon, but that the Church did not. He did not say "stay away from these - it is dangerous to read them" It would seem from his comment in Epistle 108 that he personally disagreed with the official Church position on whether they were canon.

He also does not say that the Church REJECTED them as canon. To say they did "not admit them among the canonical Scriptures" simply means they did not affirm them. That does not mean the official Church position was not a neutral one, neither accepting nor rejecting them.

Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563) did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church

There are a wide range of times the Catholic Church, in Council, quoted from the Apocrypha as "Scripture" prior to the Council of Trent. The statement at Trent was merely a reaction to the reformation. Below are quotations made from Catholic Councils prior to Trent.

Catholics and East Orthodox cannonized Esdras at the Council of Carthage (349-419).

I found several web sites that gave these references;

Nicea II: Canon 16 (787) - Sirach 1:25 (scripture)
Constantinople IV: Canon 10 (869) - Sirach 11:7 (scripture)
Lateran IV: Section 70 (1215) - Sirach 2:12, 3:28** (it is written)
Vienne: Section 14 (1311) - Sirach 24:17
Section 24 (1311) - Wisdom 5:6**
Section 38 (1312) - Sirach 24:31, 1:5; Susannah/Daniel 13:42**
Basle/Florence: Session 21(1435) - Sirach 18:23 (scripture)
Session 3 (1438) - Wisdom 10:20 (it is written)
Session 6 (1439) - Tobit 12:20**
Session 7 (1439) - Susannah/Daniel 13:9
Session 9 (1440) - Wisdom 5:21**

And of course the many quotations from people like Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, The Didache, Irenius, Clement, Barnabas, and many others show us a trend of general acceptance on some level going back to the first century AD. The Vulgate was really the first attempt to make a decision as to what should be included in canon and what should not. Prior to that time, every scribe / commentator made up his own mind about it. The Church remained neutral on the issue for many years.

I am NOT trying to defend the Apocrypha as Divinely inspired and I probably consider it less inspired than Jerome and many others that quoted it as "Scripture". What I AM trying to do is get you to think for yourself instead of reading some sort of post about how bad it is so you won't read it to find out for yourself. Note that in all of the above claims, NOT ONCE does the author actually QUOTE anything from the Apocrypha. That should smell funny. People do that when they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and fool you into not reading something or make you think the Apocrypha teaches something it does not teach. They will claim it says something it does not without actually quoting what it says.

Nearly all the false claims made above are easily disproved. There's many examples of the Apocrypha being accepted by the early Church. They did not have a firm widespread agreement on what did or did not constitute "Scripture" in many cases. Different writers had different opinions. But several Apocryphal works were widespreadly accepted.

Many people will make the wild claim that Early christians believed.....exactly what they are trying to prove at that moment in time!!! But we need to research and read what they ACTUALLY SAID, not make wild claims about what they believed based on OUR PRESUMPTION that it was the same as what seems right to us today.

Also, most Early European Christians would not have had access to a Hebrew manuscript of the Tanach, or a version of the Latin or Greek Tanach (Old Testament) that DID NOT INCLUDE the Apocrypha. Again, I am not trying to promote the Apocrypha, but I do not like seeing wild claims made in an attempt to promote an agenda that is factually untrue. We need to form beliefs from truth, not wild claims made because they agree with our sense of modern interpreted correctness.

Jews on the other hand never would have put all the Hebrew scriptures together in one book. Torah was ONE SCROLL. The prophets were ONE SCROLL. The Writings where ONE SCROLL. The "Bible" was a collection of these scrolls, with the "Writings" and "The Prophets" considered to have less authority than the Torah. That is not how Christians think, but it is how Jews thought. The "Apocrypha" would have simply been a 4th scroll, with authority below the writings. The levels of authority in Jewish thought are

1. Torah - considered letter for letter inspired.
2. Prophets (included Kings, Judges and Samuel) - not considered by Jews as inspired as Torah.
3. Writings (which included Daniel) - not considered by Judaism as inspired as the Prophets
4. Apocrypha - not considered as inspired as the "Writings"

The concept of varying levels of inspiration is not part of Christian thinking. Most Protestants put all books on the same inspired level. Catholics put all Scripture on the same level as tradition. Judaism also had LEVELS to tradition with the Scriptures being considered the most important and highest tradition. Other traditions have levels of authority based on their source and timing - an issue too complicated to get into here. But their view was not the same as Catholics, who put all tradition on one level of authority. Judaism considered their own traditions to be potentially flawed, and used the "levels" concept to determine how to resolve conflicts between one tradition and another or Scripture.

So one thing that must be kept in mind is that when a Protestant talks about "canon", he may mean a far different differentiation about that than how it is being used by members of the Early Church or by a Jewish Beit Din. Many early christians whose writings were preserved for us by the Catholic Church thought similarly to the Catholic Church. Otherwise, their writings would not have been preserved. Some may have been influenced by the Jewish concept of levels. Because of that, they didn't always use the word "canon" the same way you and I would use it. For them, it was more about verification of the source, rather than inspiration of the content. Modern Protestant use "canon" to refer to being accepted as divinely inspired. For the early church, "canon" meant more verification that the source text is legit, is in the original language or came from it virtually unaltered, actually came from the author it was alleged to come from, and not written by someone else, that the source author is credible, etc.

Part of the reason the Apocrypha had a mixed reception is that it did not match much of what was considered necessary to be "canon" by their definition of the word.

original language sources were hard to find to compare the translation to, as opposed to the ease of finding Hebrew copies of the Tanach.
Tradition is unsure if it was really written by the person it was claimed to be written by.
The person was not a prophet.

The article at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/pastorbob831-7.htm did the reverse of what is scholarly. It said;

He "majored in church history, in seminary", as if to set himself up as an expert on church history. That is, it is an attempt to convey the though "trust me, I'm an expert".
Made at least 11 allegations about church history that I easily disproved in the above simply by quoting what his alleged sources actually said and showing that those sources say the opposite of what he claimed.

That is WAY TOO MANY MISTAKES for someone who allegedly "majored in church history" and wants to use that as credibility and there is a serious problem here. First off, you destroy your own credibility for thoroughness when you make unsupportable claims that cannot be backed up by the sources you are claiming. But when you make claims that are the OPPOSITE of the sources you cite, as was done in many cases in the above, you destroy your credibility on more than just thoroughness, but on reliability as well. Who is going to take someone's word as an expert when their sources say the OPPOSITE of what they claim?

Some people read from history to try to learn from it. I have read everything the early Church Pioneers wrote from at least prior to Jerome because I wanted to understand how they think. Other people simply try to USE history to PROVE their agenda with no real regard to trying to understand how someone different from them thinks differently.

Also, the article at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/pastorbob831-7.htm does the opposite of what I try to do. My goal is not to get you to agree with me. I am more concerned about the logic behind what I post than the conclusions. It is one of the reasons I sometimes argue both sides of an issue, and present a case for and against the same issue. I have even at times posted counter arguments I did not agree with in response to what other people have posted just because I felt like both sides of the issue should be examined. I am more concerned about you learning to THINK DEEPLY about a matter and THINK IT THROUGH and use PROPER LOGIC than whether you agree with me. I really believe that if we all learn to THOROUGHLY RESEARCH what we believe, the Church will come to unity on doctrine far faster than if we use underhanded approaches to promote a position, like trying to falsify Church history to get everyone to believe something that is not true.

Now when you demonstrate to someone that what they said was wrong, a scholarly person will stop making the false claim. But when people try to USE history to promote their personal agenda, it is not uncommon for them to continue to make the same claims over and over again. You can show someone a Hebrew text of Macabees, and they will still claim there is no Hebrew manuscript of Macabees when their doctrine is their god, and all facts must bow to the god of doctrine. You can quote where Origen quoted from the Apocrypha, will they still continue to say he spoke out against the Apocrypha when people are of the opinion that all facts must bow to the god of doctrine and it is OK to say ANYTHING, as long as it promotes the doctrines you want people to believe.

Some of these claims are also found at http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/ , which Pastor Bob apparently copied from somewhere, but without giving the source, giving me the impression he wrote it himself. That web site appears to have plagarized the arguments from page 7 of Basic Theology By Dag Heward-Mills.

Pastor Bob did not deliniate where the text he took from this URL and what he added himself begins and ends. When you plagarize something, and don't read what you plagarized and don't research whether it is true or not, well, you destroy your credibility on numerous levels.

Shalom,

Joe

Claim made	Truth
Not one of the books referred to, as the Apocrypa, were in the Hebrew language. All but one, was in Greek, and the lone exception was in Latin.	Many Apocryphal books WERE written in Hebrew. Some had not been preserved in Hebrew. I gave an example from Esdras at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/jovial83.htm of how it is clear Esdras must have been written in Hebrew. It was rejected by Jews because it foretells the Gospel too explicitely, but mostly accepted by the early Church, since it was quoted in various early Church writings. All of the New Testament was rejected by this same group. I have a copy of 1 Macabees in Hebrew from the DSS. Enoch was definitely written in Hebrew, but only preserved in a slavic language, but not in Greek or Latin. Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enoch was accepted by the Essenes as Scripture, though they omited one of the other books the Pharisees accepted. It was either Kings or Chronicles, but I forget which. The King James follows the Pharisaic canon, rather than the Essene canon. Some books probably were NOT written in Hebrew, such as 4 Macabees. I have not investigated ALL of them on that issue, since for the most part, most of them are not important enough.
Not one claims to be divinely inspired, or from the Creator	Some examples to the contrary include; 2 Esdras 1:4 starts off by saying, "And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying...." that is definitely a claim of Divine inspiration. The Letter of Jeremiah begins by saying, "A copy of an epistle, which Jeremy sent unto them which were to be led captives into Babylon by the king of the Babylonians, to certify them, as it was commanded him of God." So again, that claims to be Divinely inspired. In Sirach 24, it says, "I will again pour out teaching like prophecy". So yes, Sirach claims to be a prophetic work. Many of the Apocryphal books do NOT claim to be divinely inspired. The first 5 books of the Bible do not claim to be written by God or Moses. Neither does Judges, Chronicles, and many other books we have accepted as canon. But the claim of "not one" is false. I have provided 3 examples.
These books were never sanctioned or acknowledged as Sacred Scriptures by the Jewish religious community, and certainly never sanctioned by the Lord Jesus Christ.	Which Jewish community? Are you saying you consider the canon of the Pharisees more important than the other sects? We know the canon of the Pharisees, the Essenes and the Samaritans. We don't know the canon of the ancient Galileans or several other sects. We don't have Yeshua's commentary on these texts. However, many things Yeshua cited in Matthew 24 are mentioned in Esdras, which was written before Matthew.
The church for the first four centuries (400 years) did not include, or allow the Apocrypha works to be accepted as Canon	FALSE: Irenius, The Didache, Barnabas, Ephraim all quote Esdras. 1 Clement quotes the Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, 12:12, an apocryphal book of Moses. Polycarp quotes from Tobias 4:10. Barnabas quotes from Enoch 89:56-66 - a rather long passage. I could probably go on and on. I pulled these examples out of a quick skim of the footnotes to several works from the 1st and 2nd century AD. You should read them instead of making wild unsupportable claims about what they do or do not say. The Bible itself has 22 quotes from Apocryphal works, 6 times in the New Testament.
The Apocrypha contained fables, statements, which contradicted not only the Canonical Scriptures but themselves as well.	A "fable" is a historical account someone choses to reject. 1 Mac and 2 Mac contradict on how Antiochus died, but they had different authors. Many people have problems with Tobias. Of course, to reject EVERY book of the Apocrypha because this one or that one should be rejected is not the scholarly way to think. Each book should get its own cross examination.
It teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, assassination and theological incantations.	Does the Bible teach suicide and assassination by recording Sampson's death? Or is it just recording that it happened? Similarly, the mere fact that the Apocrypha records that something happened does not mean it is advocating it. I have heard of many skeptics claim the Bible promotes suicide and assassination are OK because it records Sampson's death.
It teaches doctrines of variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead (this is the basis for why the Roman Catholic Church prays for the dead) and sinless perfection	The above would apply to this as well.
We will have the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul in the Book of Wisdom.	Where does it say that? I have heard people quote from Hebrews 7:15 and use it to advocate the idea of the pre-existance of the soul. Why would that issue be a problem? Would it matter if you DID exist before you were born? Or before conception? Do you see a verse in Scripture you think disproves that interpretation of of Hebrews 7:15?
We will have the doctrine of alms-giving to purge sin - buying of indulgences also from the book of Tobias.We will have magic instead of miracles	Please cite examples. It is easy to make wild sweeping claims. Wild claims unsupported by actual quotations and analysis are often the result of several forms of false thinking and analysis. Sometimes they are a result of having not ever read the books to begin with.
The book of Ecclesiasticus teaches that much prayer will bring pardon.	Prove your claim. Quote the passage and explain why you think it teaches this.
All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not of Jewish origin.	The LXX was translated before Christianity existed. So no, that is wrong. Of course, most Jews did not favor the idea of translating the Scriptures and felt all Jews should simply learn Hebrew. But there were Jews in Greek speaking circles who accepted it. Philo quotes from the LXX, and in some cases, quotes LXX readings that disagree with the original Hebrew, showing no sign he is familiar with the Hebrew text being different.
The manuscripts of the Dead Sea makes it clear no Canonical book of the Old Testament was written later than the Persian period	Wrong. There are copies of the Apocryphal books in the DSS.
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the 'three-fold classification', but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired writings	Many people believe he does. He never says, "Thus sayeth the apocrypha", but he is attributed as quotes SOMETHING without identifying the source, with that something probably being the Apocrypha , by many writers. Among those alleged quotes are; Wisdom 3:16 and Wisdom 7:26 in On the confusion of Tongues, 28, i. 426 and 427 Wisdom 7:1 in De Nobilitate, § 3, ii. 439 Ecclus. 92:15 and 94:16 in On the Life of Moses, § 51, ii. 125 and On Abraham § 3, ii. 4 This is only a partial list. He never gives those books as the source he is quoting. But one would get the impression he probably read the Apocrypha, quoted things he read in it, but did not attribute it as his source.
Josephus (30-100 AD), a Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the Apocryphal books as Scripture.	Wrong. He does indeed quote from Macabees. I am not sure how much else he quotes, however , he was a historian, not a theologian, and would have mostly only quoted from it for historical reasons. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism says "Antiquities 12.272-77 largely follows 1 Macabees 2.29-41" http://www.josephus.org/hanukkah.htm has this to say "The Books of the Maccabees, which record the origins of the Hanukkah story and of the Hasmonean dynasty, are represented by Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities, Book 12 Chapter 5 through Book 13 Chapter 7. These chapters are primarily a compressed version of the First Book of Maccabees, supplemented by some material from the Second Book of Maccabees War 1 37-47, with some additional changes made by Josephus. An even more condensed version appears in the Jewish War, Book 1 Chapters 3-6" It goes on to talk about how Josephus quotes extensively from a speach given by Judas Macabee from 1 Mac, but changes it. However, the author at that web site may have failed to take into account that translation may be at stake in why the texts read differently.
Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament	In a separate post I will provide 22 quotes from Non-Biblical books, including the Apocrypha, that are in the Bible. 6 are in the New Testament. I also demonstrated this to be false at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/jovial817-3.htm where I showed many places in the New Testament that parallel Esdras and say the same thing as Esdras, while not actually quoting it as a source.
Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha - for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius	Where did these men "speak against" it? You should QUOTE these men, not make unsupportable claims. Quoting them shows the contrary. Origen accepted Apocryphal writings as Scripture in the following; In To Africanus, 5, Origen quotes from the Apocryphal Susanna / Bel and the Dragon and calls it "Scripture". In Against Celsus, 7:12, Origen quotes from Sirach 21:18 and calls in "Sacred Scripture". In Against Celsus, 5:19, Origen quotes from Tobit 12:7 In To Africanus 13, he quotes from Tobias again and says, "since the Church uses Tobias...." In Fundamental Principles, 2:2, Origen quotes from 2 Mac 7:28 and calls it Scripture, introducing it this way, " we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees" . That certainly isn't "speaking against" it as Pastor Bob alleged. In Fundamental Principles, 2:2, he quotes from Wisdom 11:17, but acknowledges that it is "not esteemed by all". Eusebius records Origen's citation of canon. Origen is listing the JEWISH canon, not his personal opinion of what is canon. In it, he adds Macabees to the canon, suggesting he considers it authoritative, though not part of the Jewish canon. He also lists BARUCH, one of the books of the Apocrypha, as among the "22 books" of Jewish canon. The reality is that the "22 books" where not really divided the same way we do. Jeremiah, Lamentations and Baruch, from the Apocrypha, were all considered part of ONE book by Origen's counting, not 3 books. It was basically 1 "book" to go with each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The "22 books" were a division , not an enumeration of sources. Ezra and Nehehmiah were considered part of the same work, despite the fact they are two different sources. Athanasius had this to say; "that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read..." Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 Note that he calls "the former" = "Wisdom, Esther, Judith, Tobit" as "canon" and the Didache and Shepherd of Meres as not canon. that is hardly "speaking against" it. He indeed states that he affirms the canonization of Sirach,Esther, Judith, and Tobit. He is rejecting New Testament Apocrypha, while accepting the Apocrypha of the Tanach (Old Testament). Cyril had a mixed opinion. He encouraged people to study those parts of the Apocrypha that were read publicly, but to not read the rest on your own. This can be found in Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4:35.
Jerome (340-420 AD), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon	Jerome translated the Apocrypha and included it in the Vulgate. Jerome had this to say, "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2]" Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 So here, Jerome calls Sirach "Scripture" and uses it to prove a point, as if he expected his reader to accept it as well. There are other places where he makes similar quotes from the Apocrypha as "Scripture", including Jerome quotes Wisdom 4:9 in To Paulinus, Epistle 58 Quotes Baruch 5:5 in To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 Quotes Baruch 6 in To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 Quotes Sirach 27:5 in To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 and also in Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 , where he also quotes Sir. 2:1 Quotes Wisdom 2:23 in Letter 51, 6, 7, Quotes Sirach 3:21 in Against the Pelagians Quotes Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45 in Letter 1:9 Quotes Judith 13:8 in to Salvina, Letter 79:10 This is only a partial list. If he rejected it, why did he quote so much from it and call it Scripture? Why did he quote it and call it "Scripture"? Elsewhere, in his preface to his translation of the Apocrypha, Jeromes does say the Church did not accept it as canon, but did not comment on whether he agreed with that opinion. It would seem from his personal letters that he personally disagreed with that position. He also encouraged people to read the Apocrypha. Here are his exact words; "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people." He did not say that HE did not accept them as canon, but that the Church did not. He did not say "stay away from these - it is dangerous to read them" It would seem from his comment in Epistle 108 that he personally disagreed with the official Church position on whether they were canon. He also does not say that the Church REJECTED them as canon. To say they did "not admit them among the canonical Scriptures" simply means they did not affirm them. That does not mean the official Church position was not a neutral one, neither accepting nor rejecting them.
Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563) did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church	There are a wide range of times the Catholic Church, in Council, quoted from the Apocrypha as "Scripture" prior to the Council of Trent. The statement at Trent was merely a reaction to the reformation. Below are quotations made from Catholic Councils prior to Trent. Catholics and East Orthodox cannonized Esdras at the Council of Carthage (349-419). I found several web sites that gave these references; Nicea II: Canon 16 (787) - Sirach 1:25 (scripture) Constantinople IV: Canon 10 (869) - Sirach 11:7 (scripture) Lateran IV: Section 70 (1215) - Sirach 2:12, 3:28 (it is written) Vienne: Section 14 (1311) - Sirach 24:17 Section 24 (1311) - Wisdom 5:6 Section 38 (1312) - Sirach 24:31, 1:5; Susannah/Daniel 13:42 Basle/Florence: Session 21(1435) - Sirach 18:23 (scripture) Session 3 (1438) - Wisdom 10:20 (it is written) Session 6 (1439) - Tobit 12:20 Session 7 (1439) - Susannah/Daniel 13:9 Session 9 (1440) - Wisdom 5:21** And of course the many quotations from people like Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, The Didache, Irenius, Clement, Barnabas, and many others show us a trend of general acceptance on some level going back to the first century AD. The Vulgate was really the first attempt to make a decision as to what should be included in canon and what should not. Prior to that time, every scribe / commentator made up his own mind about it. The Church remained neutral on the issue for many years.