Speaker 1: 0:10

Welcome to the Theological Touchpoints podcast. I'm Julian. The focus for this episode is foundations theology for the everyday Anabaptist. One of the toughest questions relating to the canon of Scripture is that of the extent of the canon. How do we know that the books we think our Scripture are actually from God? Have we missed any? Answers vary.

Speaker 1: 0:34

We are continuing the discussion on the canon of Scripture by taking a look at some of the disputed writings Regarding the New Testament. We touched last time on objections raised against several books we now consider canonical, those being Hebrews, james, 2, peter, 2, john, jude and Revelation. There are good reasons for accepting all of those in our New Testament, and you can listen to the previous episode for a sampling of those reasons. There were also other early church writings that were circulated among the churches for a time but were eventually recognized as non-canonical. Among these were the Dedeke, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas, to name a few. Each of these failed one or more of the tests of canonicity and, as such, was not recognized by the church as canonical. The New Testament canon is fairly stable, with a uniform consensus across the Orthodox Church, but the same cannot be said of the Old Testament canon. While there is a general consensus on most of the books, there is quite a bit of disagreement pertaining to the collection of Old Testament-era books entitled the Apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 1:43

What is the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha is a collection of Jewish writings, primarily from the inter-testamental period, that is, the time between Malachi and the time of Christ. They are historical, religious, prophetic and or legendary in nature. Exactly which book should be included is a question with a host of answers. If only those with the strongest historic support were included, only four would make the cut, but if we take the widest selection, we could have as many as 33 Apocrypha books. So we need some clarity. While there is a pretty broad spectrum of answers to which books should be included, there are two primary Old Testament canons, one called the Alexandrian canon and the other one the Palestinian canon.

Speaker 1: 2:34

The listing based on the Alexandrian canon includes the Apocrypha and it includes 14 or 15, depending how you count them additional books, books not included in what we would generally consider the Old Testament, that is, the 39 books of the Old Testament, from Genesis to Malachi. The Alexandrian canon is the Greek listing of Old Testament books and it allegedly arose in Alexandria, egypt, which is also where the Septuagint was translated And in fact the Septuagint included the Apocrypha. So this listing of the Old Testament canon includes 14 books that would generally be considered Apocrypha, and these books are Tobit, judith, wisdom of Solomon, sirac, baruch First and Second, Estrus, first and Second Maccabees, and then there are some additions to Esther and three additions to Daniel, those being the Prayer of Azariah, susanna and also Belle and the Dragon, and then the 14th book or writing is the Prayer of Manasseh. These 14 books are included in the Alexandrian canon, are part of the Septuagint, and it is this listing of Apocrypha books that has the most support historically and within the Christian tradition. In contrast to that, we have the Palestinian canon, or what's also called the Hebrew canon, and this is just the 39 books that we are familiar with, that we know that make up the Old Testament.

Speaker 1: 4:08

In the translations of our Bibles that most of us use, this was the standard canon of the Jews from before the time the Apocrypha was written to the time of Christ and through the time of Christ, and this was also the canon of the early church. On the main, the early church writings do contain some references to the Apocrypha. We'll get into that a little bit later, but there certainly wasn't a consensus and there certainly wasn't a majority support in the early church for the Apocrypha. So two canons the Hebrew canon, palestinian canon. This would have been the canon, the listing of books that those in Palestine, in Judea, in the time of Christ and the centuries before, the books that they would have recognized as being inspired, as being from God as the authority over them on matters of faith and practice.

Speaker 1: 5:03

The Palestinian canon, which is the 39 book canon, is the canon used by Protestants and by most Anabaptists currently and through the history of those movements and I think could be said, is the standard canon of the Orthodox Church, of the evangelical church using evangelical in the broad sense of the gospel-believing, gospel-living church of the last two millennia. The Alexandrian canon, which would be a 53 book canon, the 39 books we're familiar with, with 14 books of the Apocrypha. That canon is used by the Catholics. The Catholics look to the Apocrypha to support some beliefs that we believe are an error among those praying on behalf of the dead. This canon is also used by some Neo-Anabaptists and, strangely, by some Amish. There's a portion of the Apocrypha that's a standard part of some Amish weddings.

Speaker 1: 6:01

So again, there are two primary canons of the Old Testament, the one being the Palestinian canon, and that is the preeminent one. It's the one that has been historically recognized by the church as the correct listing of the Old Testament books. And then there is the Alexandrian canon, which is used by some to validate the Apocrypha, with its extra writings, as being the true Old Testament canon. So, of course, the big question is is the Apocrypha inspired or is it not? We have a conflict between these lists, and so we can argue that the one has been more widely accepted. That doesn't necessarily make it the right list. So the question is the Apocrypha inspired, and how do we determine whether or not the Apocrypha should be included in the Old Testament canon?

Speaker 1: 6:51

It's important for us to remember that one of the things we're saying when we say we believe a book is canonical is we're saying we believe it comes from God, it is inspired by God and it speaks with God's authority. Having a good understanding of what inspiration is and is not is key in identifying whether or not writings are inspired. The question we're asking is not just does this book contain some truth? It's not just does this book move me, does it inspire me? It's not just does this book talk about God's people. But really the question is does it come from God? Is it the authority? Is it inerrant? Is it inspired as in? does it come from God and does it speak with God's authority? So we're asking this question of the Apocrypha and what we're seeking to understand is is the Apocrypha from God or is it not? Does it speak with his authority or does it not? Does it speak for God? Is it absolutely true, absolutely trustworthy and therefore an authority on establishing doctrine in the church and understanding how God calls his people to live in the church or live as God's people, if we look at the broad picture of God giving this both through the Jews and, by extension, to his church?

Speaker 1: 8:11

We'll start with several arguments for the Apocrypha, for including the Apocrypha in the canon, and then a number of arguments against including the Apocrypha in the canon, and I'll admit here at the outset that I'm leading heavily on the book called A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix. What you're getting here is a small sampling of what they discussed in that book and if you want all the nitty-gritty details, i would encourage you to pick up the book. I think they present a good argument, giving good attention both to the arguments for the Apocrypha and the arguments against it. Arguments for including the Apocrypha in the Old Testament canon There are more than we're going to discuss here, but I've picked out what I believe are the strongest arguments for the Apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 8:58

The first is the Apocrypha is present in the Septuagint, septuagint being the Greek translation of the Old Testament. That translation includes both the 39 books we're familiar with and the 14 books of the Apocrypha. As we mentioned earlier, the Alexandrian canon is the canon developed by the Jews living in and around Alexandria in Egypt, and they would have accepted the Apocrypha as strip troll, and so it makes sense that they would have included it in the Septuagint. But it is true, the Apocrypha was included in the translation of the Septuagint and so it would have probably been a part of the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles used. Second argument for the Apocrypha some of the early Church Fathers quoted from the Apocrypha and used the Apocrypha as scripture in public worship. A third argument Augustine, a later Church Leader, accepted the Apocrypha as scripture, very clearly made arguments for the acceptance of the Apocrypha as scripture. Both the Apocrypha books have been included in Protestant Bibles really from the beginning of the Protestant movement as late as the 19th century. So from the 16th century to the 19th century the Protestant Bibles would have included the Apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 10:17

Fifth argument for the Apocrypha is that it is Jewish in origin, comes from God's people, and it is religious in nature and there's a lot in the Apocrypha that is compelling to the believer and sheds a lot of light on issues related to Judaism. So there are several arguments that can be made for the Apocrypha that carry some weight. I believe each of those have good arguments against them, and then there are additional reasons that we'll look at for not including the Apocrypha in the Old Testament canon. So, as I said, there are some decent arguments for the Apocrypha, but I believe each of these arguments have a good explanation, explanations that help us understand why these are not definitive arguments for the inclusion of the Apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 11:10

The first argument for the Apocrypha is that it is present in the Septuagint Explanation of that. It's not certain that the first century Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. The earliest versions of the Septuagint that we have are from the fourth century, so we're not entirely sure that it was included in the first century when Jesus and the Apostles would have been quoting from the Septuagint. It is possible that the Apocrypha was added at some later date. But even if the first century Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, jesus and the Apostles made their opinion clear by never once quoting it. They quote extensively from the rest of the Old Testament but never once quote from the Apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 11:53

Now there are some references to Old Testament writings that have been preserved but are not including the Old Testament canon. Jude, for example, quotes from Enoch and from the assumption of Moses. Interestingly, neither of those are in the list I gave earlier. Neither of those would have been included in the Septuagint, so that's not a very strong argument for it. Also, if you remember from the last episode, jude was for a while questioned as canonical because it quoted from Enoch and the assumption of Moses. That tells us that the Church at that time understood that Enoch and the assumption of Moses were not a part of the Old Testament canon and the fact that Jude quoted from them made them question whether or not Jude was legitimate. It was only an understanding that Jude references it but does not quote it as an authority on the truth that then the Church accepted Jude as canonical.

Speaker 1: 12:50

A second argument for the Apocrypha, as some of the early Church fathers quoted from the Apocrypha and used it as scripture in public worship. It is difficult to understand exactly how the early Church fathers viewed the Apocrypha. Just because they quoted from it doesn't necessarily mean they viewed it as scripture, and Roger Beckwith has a thing or two to say about this that I think is helpful. When one examines the passages in the early fathers which are supposed to establish a canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra or from editions or penises to Daniel, jeremiah or some other canonical book. That other quotes are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all and that of those, which are many, do not give any indication that the book is regarded as scripture.

Speaker 1: 13:38

So three things here in understanding the early Church fathers use of the Apocrypha. One is that their quotes from the Apocrypha are some of the time taken from those pieces of the Apocrypha that are additions to canonical books, not necessarily the standalone ones, but maybe parts of a book or a different text of one of the Old Testament books, rather than being a completely independent Apocrypha book. Secondly, some of the quotes that appear to be from the Apocrypha are not actually from the Apocrypha. And third, many of the times when there are references to Apocrypha books it's not clear that the book is actually regarded as scripture. It's cited for its insights into the Jewish life and culture, but not necessarily cited as scriptural.

Speaker 1: 14:23

A distinction between citing a text as the authority saying God said this and building on that truth. That's distinct from simply making a reference to an apocrypha book. So it's apparent that the apocrypha was in circulation at the time. What's not apparent is whether or not they viewed it as scripture. A third argument for the apocrypha is that Augustine accepted them. Argument against that is Augustine is the single significant voice of antiquity that recognized the apocrypha And his contemporary, jerome, who was a greater biblical authority, was more versed in the history of the text of scripture. Jerome rejected the apocrypha, so Augustine accepted it, but a contemporary of his rejected it And Augustine stands nearly alone as a voice in the early church for the apocrypha.

Speaker 1: 15:15

A fourth argument for the apocrypha the apocrypha books were included in the Protestant Bible's latest 19th century. But explanation for that the apocrypha was included but it was placed in the back and it was clearly distinguished from the inspired canon. So the fact that it was printed together doesn't necessarily mean that it was viewed as being inspired or authoritative, but it was placed along scripture as a help, as a guide, as additional material that is helpful in understanding the overall narrative of scripture, much like some of our modern Bibles include a commentary printed on the bottom of the page corresponding with certain scriptures to shed some light, to help us understand what's going on in the text. The apocrypha was included to help those who study scripture understand the narrative of scripture. But that does not mean that the apocrypha was viewed as scripture. So explanations, counterarguments against those arguments for the acceptance of the apocrypha, additional reasons for not including the apocrypha in scripture.

Speaker 1: 16:13

First, the books don't claim authority for themselves. We look at the Old Testament writings We have many times thus says the Lord the word of the Lord came to me, the Lord spoke to me. The writers recognized they were speaking for God and it's a part of the warp and wolf of the text that these books are themselves claiming to be an authority. This is not true. In the apocrypha, the writers do not claim to be speaking on behalf of God. They were simply writing Jewish history. In fact, it seems the writers at times intentionally emphasize that they weren't writing scripture, nor do they intend to. They specifically avoid saying things that would make it seem like what they're writing is scripture. Second reason they were not regarded as God's words by the Jewish people from whom they originated. So not only did the writers not claim authority, but the Jewish people, the culture, the people that produced the book and reserved the book, did not see it as God's word.

Speaker 1: 17:13

Third, as already mentioned, the apocrypha was not considered to be scripture by Jesus or by the New Testament authors. And fourth, and very importantly, they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. Also, they failed the tests of canonicity And we ask the question was this writing? was it written by a prophet, by one called by God to speak on his behalf? We answer that with a no. Is it orthodox? Is it true? Does it agree with the rest of the recognized word of God? We answer that with a no. Was it accepted by God's people? No. And does it speak with God's power? No. And so all four of the tests of canonicity that we've covered in previous episodes. The apocrypha fails many, if not all, of those tests of canonicity and therefore should not be included in our canon.

Speaker 1: 18:04

Returning back to the book by Geisler Nix, again, they summarize the whole argument in asking the question to accept the apocrypha's canonical, they say no on the basis of five things. First, some of their teaching is unbiblical. It's inconsistent with scripture. Some of their stories are extra biblical or even fanciful, move beyond the realm of reality. Third, much of their teaching is subbiblical, at times even immoral, where it affirms and even promotes things that are against the law of God.

Speaker 1: 18:38

Fourth, most of it was written in the post-biblical or the intertestamental period, the time between Malachi. Malachi ends with an expectation of the next prophet, that prophet being John the Baptist, and the apocrypha. Most, if not all of it was written in that period between Malachi and John, when there was no prophet among the people of Israel And in fact even in Maccabees. There's a record of Judas Maccabees tearing down an altar that had been defiled and they put the stones in storage to wait until a prophet could come and tell them what to do with them, because there was no prophet in the land, so they didn't have anyone to go to to hear from God through that person. They didn't have any spokespersons for God among them at that time. And if there was no spokesperson among them, there was no one qualified to write scripture in that time period. And fifth, none of the apocrypha was received as scripture by the people of God.

Speaker 1: 19:39

So there are several other principles that may be helpful in you understanding how to think about the Apocrypha. One thing that's not always well understood is just because a book contains some truth doesn't mean it's a reliable source of truth. It is accurate to say that the Apocrypha contains some truth, and that it is true at times and what it says, but just because portions of it are true doesn't mean all of it's true. And in our understanding what scripture is, if scripture comes from God, it speaks for God. God cannot lie, so it must be accurate, it must be inerrant, and for a text to have error in it invalidates it as being canonical, as being inspired, as being from God.

Speaker 1: 20:23

Another principle, one of the tests of canonicity, is apostolicity. It needs to be written by someone called by God to speak on his behalf, somebody who is recognized among the people of God as being an authority, as being one who speaks for God, as being a prophet. Anyone can write some truth, but not anyone can speak for God. Only those called by God can speak for him. And so, though, a writing may contain some truth and it may be moving and even deeply religious, it ought not be considered an authority on matters of faith and practice. In denying the canonicity of the apocrypha, we are not saying that it's wicked, false or corrupt. We are simply saying that it ought not be given equal status with the other biblical writings. And just one final thing for us to think about together.

Speaker 1: 21:12

In my experience, many who want to include the apocrypha in the canon, who want to elevate the apocrypha to status of canonical, to status of being inspired, many of those who want to elevate the apocrypha have a low view of scripture as a whole. An elevation of the apocrypha at times goes hand in hand with the denial of the inerrancy of scripture and the accuracy of scripture and the truthfulness of scripture, and so some of the things we were just talking about with the errors in the apocrypha are not a problem with this mindset, because they see error in the rest of scripture and versus. I believe there's good explanation for those apparent errors and ways those can be resolved and good understanding of those things, and we'll save that full discussion on inerrancy for another time. But when we have a low view of scripture, then it's not difficult to elevate the apocrypha to the same status as scripture. Those people are equally optimistic toward the early church writings and are quick to elevate the early church fathers as a sort of authority on the truth as well and give those writings kind of a quasi scriptural status. It's important for us to understand.

Speaker 1: 22:21

These religious writings by God's people are helpful, the writings in the apocrypha, the writings in the early church. It's not that they're wrong, it's not that they're bad, it's just the question is are they perfect? Are they pure? Are they without error? Are they from God? And these writings most certainly are not. So these religious writings by God's people are helpful, but they ought never replace scripture or even be equated with it. When the authority and inerrancy of scripture are downplayed, it becomes a very short step to elevate these religious writings to equal status. But that compromises the preeminence of God's inspired word.

Speaker 1: 23:01

So should we read the apocrypha? Sure, it shed some light on Jewish thought, life and history, but is it inspired? No, beneficial, yes, much as reading Josephus is helpful in understanding Judaism, but does it deserve a place in the canon? No. Jerome, who we referenced earlier, who was a leader in the fourth century church, has this to say of the apocrypha. He says the church reads the apocrypha, for example of life and instruction of manners, but does not apply them to establish any doctrine. And therein is the distinction we're going for. It's helpful, it's fine, we can read it, we can learn from it, but we must not use the apocrypha to establish a doctrine, to establish truth, use it as an authority in the church, as being from God, with equal status to the rest of scripture.

Speaker 1: 23:58

The apocrypha is an interesting collection of Jewish religious writings from the inter-testamental period. They shed some light on Jewish culture and history and are even helpful to validate the true canon. But do they deserve to be recognized as an authority among God's people? I think we've seen plenty of reasons why they should not. These writings are helpful, yes, but are they inspired? I think we need to answer that with a no.

Speaker 1: 24:23

So far in this series, we've discussed what canon is, how we should think about it, how it is determined and how these principles are used to recognize which writings have been inspired by God and are thus authoritative in God's church. Our next and final discussion is on the close of the canon. Join me next time as we wrap up this discussion of the canon of scripture. Thank you for joining us for this episode of the Theological Touchpoints podcast. This podcast is a production of Sword and Trumpet Ministries. For more information, visit wwwswordandtrumpetorg or theologicaltouchpointscom. If you have thoughts or questions, you can contact us at podcastatheologicaltouchpointscom. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.