Respostas s objees acerca dos Apcrifos :

Nenhum desses livros reivindica inspirao.

by Gary Hoge

Grande coisa. exceo do livro do Apocalipse nem um dos livros do N.

Testamento reivindica sua inspirao tambm. No apenas isto, mas h certas
passagens no N. Testamento que parecem enfraquecer nossa reivindicao de que
sejam inspiradas. Por exemplo, em 1 Cor. 1:16 Paulo se esquece a quem ele
batizou, e em 1 Cor. 7:12 e 1 Cor. 7:25 ele explicitamente declara que o que se
segue de opinio pessoal, no palavra de Deus. No evangelho de Lucas, o autor
declara que escreveu o livro no por ordem de Deus, mas porque lhe pareceu
bem faz-lo (Lucas 1:3). Sequer constou assim disse o Senhor.
A verdade que h muitos livros na bblia que no reivindicam inspirao e so
poucos aqueles que o reclamam. Agora, permita-me virar a mesa sobre voc e me
responda o seguinte: porque voc reivindica para esses livros um status que nem
mesmo eles o fazem? Se os prprios livros no reivindicam serem inspirados, por
que voc diz que eles o so? Porque voc acha que a carta particular de Paulo a
Filemon deveria ser lida por voc como Escritura inspirada, e Genesis e Isaias? Por
falar nisso, porque voc acha que a carta particular de Paulo a Tito inspirada, mas
a sua epstola pblica Igreja em Laodiceia (Col. 4:16) no seja?1

Notas Finais
1
Certamente no h nenhum mal-entendido, permita-me adiantar e dizer que a
igreja catlica realmente acredita na total inspirao de ambos os testamentos. Nas
palavras do Papa Leo XIII, absolutamente errneo e proibido, ou limitar a
inspirao a certas partes das Escrituras Sagradas ou admitir que o escritor sagrado
errou. . . ., Pois todos os livros que a Igreja recebe como sagrados e cannicos so
escritos completa e totalmente com todas as suas partes conforme ditados pelo
Esprito Santo. (Providentissimus Deus (Acerca dos Estudos da Sagrada
Escritura), 20-21, November 18, 1893).
| Home | Objections Regarding the Apocrypha |
Copyright 2000 by Gary Hoge
 Respostas s objees acerca dos Apcrifos :
Estes livros nunca foram reconhecidos como Escrituras pelo
Judasmo.
by Gary Hoge
E da? O Judasmo nunca reconheceu Jesus como Messias tambm, ento
francamente a opinio deles no tem tanto peso. Porque eu deveria confiar no
julgamento deles acerca do cnon do A. Testamento e rejeitar o cnon que fora
formulado pela igreja de Jesus Cristo? Alm disso, devo ressaltar que apenas os
Judeus Palestinenses rejeitaram os sete livros deuterocannicos, ao passo em que
os Judeus helenistas de fala grega os aceitaram. (Mesmo hoje, os Judeus da Etipia
os aceitam como Escritura).
O cnon da Palestina estava mais ou menos terminado por volta do final do
primeiro sculo A.D. (embora a canonicidade de Provrbios, Cnticos dos
Cnticos, Eclesiastes, Ester, Ezequiel e Jonas fosse debatida durante o segundo
sculo e aps). entendimento de muitos que o cnon Palestinense foi amplamente
estabelecido por um grupo de rabinos reunidos em Jmnia no ano de 90 A.D.
(contudo isto esteja longe de ser considerado como certo). Aqueles rabinos
estavam aparentemente tentando refocalizar o Judasmo aps a destruio do
templo em 70 A.D., um evento que sob uma perspectiva crist se constitua numa
prova de que os Judeus haviam perdido sua autoridade de falar por Deus. Esta
perda est amplamente demonstrada pela atitude dos rabinos com relao aos
livros do Novo Testamento, os quais foram por eles categoricamente rejeitados e
especificamente excludos do seu cnon das Escrituras.
One reason these rabbis rejected the deuteros was because those books were part of
the Septuagint, or LXX, the Greek version of the Old Testament that was
essentially the Christian Old Testament. As the Protestant International Bible
Commentary acknowledges,
The completed LXX [Septuagint] not only contained the 39 books of the
Hebrew canon; it also contained other books as well, books commonly
called apocryphal. . . . Recent studies show that for all practical purposes the
Bible of the NT writers was the LXX [Septuagint] .1
The Septuagint, or LXX, was the Bible that the early Christians used, and it was
the Bible from which the New Testament authors drew about eighty-percent of
their quotations. Given the universal acceptance of the LXX among the early
Christians, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus Himself only accepted the smaller
Hebrew canon. Again, the International Bible Commentary acknowledges this:
 Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of
the Hebrew OT . . . he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many
of the early followers of Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as
equally authoritative those extra books in the wider canon of the LXX . . .
Polycarp, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Origen Greek and Latin Fathers alike quote both classes of books, those
of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha, without distinction. Augustine
(A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for equal and identical
divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian canon.2
So, in the early centuries of the Christian era there was a Jewish canon, which
excluded the deuterocanonical books, and a Christian canon, which included
them. As the International Bible Commentary says elsewhere, The apocryphal
books were excluded from the Hebrew canon at least from A.D. 90 on, but
included in the canon of the Christian church.3
In the early centuries of the Church, the scope of the canon of Scripture was fuzzy,
and individual Christians accepteded different books as Scripture. Some of these
people did exclude the deuterocanonical books (along with other books that we all
accept today), but whenever the Church itself, through its councils, set forth lists of
the scriptural books, the deuterocanonical books were always included among the
other biblical books, without distinction. It is thought that the first such list was
drawn up at a synod in Rome in the year 382 under the direction of Pope Damasus
I. The same list was reaffirmed by the Synods of Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D.
397, 419), and the Ecumenical Councils of II Nicaea (787), Florence (1442), Trent
(1546), and Vatican I (1869).
So which canon is right, the Jewish canon, or the Christian canon? That depends. If
the canon of Scripture is merely mans opinion, then theres no way to know which
one is right. Maybe theyre both wrong. However, if Gods guidance was involved
in the formation of the true canon, then we must decide whether we think He was
more likely to have guided the Jewish rabbis, or the church of the living God, the
pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). As a Christian, I believe that God
guided His Church, not the rabbis, and so I accept the Christian canon. Martin
Luther and the other Reformers decided to adopt the Jewish canon instead:
Protestant leaders ignored traditional acceptance of all the books of the LXX
and refused the status of inspiration to those books of the Vulgate not found
in the Hebrew canon. Luther denied canonical status to the Apocrypha
although he included them all (except 1-2 Esdras) as an appendix to his
translation (1534). He called them useful and good to be read. Calvin and
his followers completely gave up the idea of canonicity for the Apocrypha
and excluded them from the Bible because the Jews who had been entrusted
 with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) had earlier rejected them from their
canon.4
There were a number of theological reasons why the Reformers rejected the
deuterocanonical books and adopted the Jewish canon, but the reason they gave
was that the Jews had been entrusted with the oracles of God, and therefore, it fell
to them to tell the rest of us what those were:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in
circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with
the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of
faith nullify Gods faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a
liar. As it is written: So that you may be proved right when you speak and
prevail when you judge. (Rom. 3:1-4)
This is why Protestant Bibles today mirror the Jewish canon favored by the rabbis,
and not the Christian canon favored by the apostles and their successors. The
Reformers put their faith in the judgment of the first-century Jewish rabbis. All
other Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, etc.) put their faith in the
judgment of the Church of Jesus Christ. Where will you put your faith?
End Notes
1
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,
International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1986), 34-35.
2
Ibid, 37, 35.
3
Ibid, 34.
4
Ibid, 36.
| Home | Objections Regarding the Apocrypha |
Copyright 2000 by Gary Hoge

Answers to Objections Regarding

The Apocrypha:
No canon or council of the Christian church for the first four
centuries recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.
by Gary Hoge
I found this objection in Josh McDowells book, Evidence That Demands a
Verdict1, but McDowell was actually quoting from a book by Norman Geisler and
William Nix2. The thing that really bothers me about this objection is that its so
obviously bogus that its hard to believe that its authors arent being deliberately
dishonest. You see, the truth is that no canon or council of the Christian Church for
the first four centuries recognized any book as inspired. For some reason, the
various church councils just didnt get around to dealing with this issue until the
late fourth century. According to the International Bible Commentary, an
Evangelical Protestant reference book,
It was not until the year A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27
New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period
of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process
of being formed.3
So according to this Protestant source (and I could cite many others), no canon or
council of the Christian church for the first four centuries recognized the New
Testament as inspired, either. As a matter of fact, it was this very same council, the
Synod of Hippo, in canon 364, that also first officially recognized the inspiration of
the deuterocanonical books. Let me say that again: both the New Testament and
the deuterocanonical books were officially canonized at the same time by the same
council.
Geisler and Nix are scholars, so they obviously know this. Why then do they make
a point of saying that the deuterocanonical books werent canonized until the
fourth century, when they know that the New Testament books werent canonized
until the fourth century, either? Its as if theyre hoping that most people wont
know that. I mean, when youre told that no church council recognized the
deuterocanonical books as inspired for the first four hundred years of Christian
history, what are you supposed to think? It seems obvious that youre supposed to
think, Gosh, the early Christians must not have thought that those books were
inspired, or else they would have accepted them along with the other books.
Obviously, youre supposed to assume that various canons and councils of the
Christian church did accept the other biblical books, but that they either ignored or
rejected the deuterocanonical books for four hundred years. What Geisler and Nix
said was true, but its what they didnt say, and what they seem to want you to
assume that makes this objection seem so dishonest.
Now, the fact that the church waited until the late fourth century to officially
recognize the inspiration of the 27 New Testament books doesnt mean that they
werent previously regarded as the inspired word of God. The bishops at Hippo
didnt just pull their list out of thin air, after all. On the contrary, as Protestant
scholar F.F. Bruce observed,
When at last a Church Council the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 listed the
twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any
 authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their
previously established canonicity.5
But if thats true for the New Testament, its also true for the Old Testament. The
Synod of Hippo did not confer upon the deuterocanonical books any authority that
they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established
canonicity, right along with the other biblical books. This fact is confirmed by
Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelley:
[The Old Testament] always included, though with varying degrees of
recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. . . . In the
first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of,
these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question
as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and
Barnabas . . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus.
Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon,
and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to
be necessary.6
So the truth in all of this is that there was a period of about 350 years during which
the canons of the New Testament, and of the Old Testament, were being formed. In
the case of the New Testament, there were some books that were universally
accepted right away (e.g., the four gospels), and others that were initially rejected
by many, but later accepted (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation), and still others that were
accepted by many at first, but later rejected (e.g., The Shepherd, The Didache). In
the early centuries of the Church, people generally had a good idea of which books
belonged in the New Testament, but there was some fuzziness around the
periphery.
That was also true of the Old Testament. Most Christians had a good idea of which
books properly belonged in the Old Testament, but there was some fuzziness
around the periphery. The deuterocanonical books (among a few others, e.g.,
Esther) were occassionally disputed by some, but most Christians accepted them as
Scripture. It wasnt until the fourth century that the Church finally got around to
formulating an official list, and that list included the deuterocanonical books7. So
when Geisler and Nix say that the deuterocanonical books were not officially
recognized until the fourth century, theyre right, but neither were any of the other
biblical books.
End Notes
1
Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino, CA: Heres
Life Publishers, 1972), vol. 1, 36.
2
Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1968), 173.
3
David F. Payne, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, International Bible
Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1986), 1005.
4
Here is Canon 36 of the Council of Hippo:

Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under
the title of divine writings. The canonical books are: Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of
Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of
Paraleipomena [i.e., 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalms of David,
the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs,
Wisdom, Sirach], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias,
Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of
the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are: the four Gospels,
the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to
the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle
of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the
confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church]
shall be consulted.
5
quoted in McDowell, Evidence, 38.
6
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 53-4.
7
And the same list of books was subsequently ratified by the synods of Carthage
(A.D. 397, 419), and the Ecumenical Councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546),
and Vatican I (1869). As far as I know, there was never a council of the Christian
church that didnt include the deuterocanonical books in its list of inspired books, if
it listed any at all.
| Home | Objections Regarding the Apocrypha |
Copyright 2000 by Gary Hoge
 Answers to Objections Regarding
The Apocrypha:
These books teach doctrines at variance with the Bible, such
as prayers for the dead; they teach immoral practices, such as
lying, assassination and magic; they abound in historical and
geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
by Gary Hoge
These are the same kind of lame accusations that rationalists and anti-Christian
sceptics make against the rest of the Bible. For example, I found the following
objections at an anti-Christian website:
2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3And God
said, Let there be light, and there was light.', CAPTION, 'Genesis 1:2-3')"
href="javascript:void(0);"Genesis 1:2-3 asserts that God created light and
divided it from darkness on the first day, but 14And God said, Let there be
lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let
them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15and let them be
lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.
16
God made two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the
lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the
night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19
And there was evening, and there was morning the fourth day.',
CAPTION, 'Genesis 1:14-19')" href="javascript:void(0);"Genesis 1:14-19
says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day.
[I]n the story of the census taken by King David and Gods subsequent
punishment of the Israelites. . . . II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord caused
David to take the census, but I Chronicles 21:1 tells us that David was
incited by Satan to take the census.
At Ezekiel 18:20, the Lord states: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father.... However, at Exodus 20:5, God says: ...I the Lord thy God am a
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
In the story of the birth of Jesus, 13When they had gone, an angel of the
Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. Get up, he said, take the child and
his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going
to search for the child to kill him. 14So he got up, took the child and his
 mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death
of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet:
Out of Egypt I called my son.', CAPTION, 'Matthew 2:13-15')"
href="javascript:void(0);"Matthew 2:13-15 says that Joseph and Mary fled
to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east
had brought their gifts. However, 22When the time of their purification
according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took
him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord . . . 39When Joseph and Mary
had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to
Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became
strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.',
CAPTION, 'Luke 2:22, 39-40')" href="javascript:void(0);"Luke 2:22-40
indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in
Bethlehem for the time of Marys purification (which was forty days, under
the Mosaic law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem to present him to the
Lord, and then returned to their home in Nazareth.
Matthew 27:44 tells us that Jesus was taunted by both of the criminals who
were being crucified with him. However, 39 One of the criminals who hung
there hurled insults at him: Arent you the Christ? Save yourself and us!
40
But the other criminal rebuked him. Dont you fear God, he said, since
you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are
getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.
42
Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
43
Jesus answered him, I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in
paradise.', CAPTION, 'Luke 23:39-43')" href="javascript:void(0);"Luke
23:39-43 states that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, that the other
criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and that Jesus told the
criminal who was defending him: Today shalt thou be with me in
paradise.
Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men
who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9
asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw
a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.
Protestants and Catholics both believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God,
and therefore, we believe that apparent contradictions and difficulties like those
listed above can be explained. We believe this even if we don't yet know what that
explanation is. Popular Protestant author Josh McDowell wrote,
One of the things for which we appeal with regard to possible contradictions
is fairness. . . . [W]e must always begin by giving the author the benefit of
 the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and we ask that it also be the
rule here. We find so often that people want to employ a different set of rules
when it comes to examining the Bible, and to this we immediately
object. . . .
As historical and archaeological study proceed, new light is being shed on
difficult portions of scripture and many errors have disappeared with the
new understanding. We need a wait-and-see attitude on some problems.
While all Bible difficulties and discrepancies have not yet been cleared up, it
is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bibles past,
these problems will fade away.1
McDowells comments demonstrate that Protestants (like Catholics) accept the
books of the Bible in spite of their apparent contradictions and discrepancies. As
McDowell himself noted, All Bible difficulties and discrepancies have not yet
been cleared up. One would expect, then, that McDowell, and other Protestants,
would take the same wait-and-see attitude with any problems they might
discover in the part of the Old Testament that they call Apocrypha, but for some
reason, they don't. Here is Josh McDowell again:
The apocrypha contains demonstrable errors . . . Tobit was supposedly alive
when Jeroboam staged his revolt in 931 B.C. and was still living at the time
of the Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.), yet the Book of Tobit says he lived only
158 years (3I, Tobit, have walked all the days of my life on the paths of
truth and righteousness. I performed many charitable works for my kinsmen
and my people who had been deported with me to Nineveh, in Assyria.
4
When I lived as a young man in my own country, Israel, the entire tribe of
my forefather Naphtali had broken away from the house of David and from
Jerusalem. This city had been singled out of all Israels tribes, so that they all
might offer sacrifice in the place where the temple, Gods dwelling, had
been built and consecrated for all generations to come. 5All my kinsmen, like
the rest of the tribe of my forefather Naphtali, used to offer sacrifice on all
the mountains of Galilee as well as to the young bull which Jeroboam, king
of Israel, had made in Dan.', CAPTION, 'Tobit 1:3-5')"
href="javascript:void(0);"Tobit 1:3-5, 14:11).2
This demonstrates the curious double-standard that Protestants have regarding the
deuterocanonical Old Testament books. If the atheists attack the book of Daniel by
pointing out that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus (556-539 B.C), not
Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 1King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his
nobles and drank wine with them. 2While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he
gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father
had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives
and his concubines might drink from them.', CAPTION, 'Daniel 5:1-2')"
href="javascript:void(0);"Daniel 5:1-2), Protestants nevertheless maintain their
firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bibles past, these
problems will fade away. But these very same Protestants will then turn around
and attack the book of Tobit on the same basis that the atheists attacked Daniel.
The Protestants will say that Tobit cannot be the Word of God because it contains
historical discrepancies, just as the atheists say that Daniel cant be the Word of
God because it contains historical discrepancies.
As I said, its a curious double-standard. When they're defending the books they
accept, Protestants are circumspect and cautious, appealing for benefit of the
doubt and a wait-and-see attitude, but when the subject turns to the books they
dont accept, they sound, ironically, very much like the atheists to whom they just
finished appealing for fairness. Why the inconsistency? I think the answer is
simple. On a gut level, they're convinced that the deuterocanonical books don't
belong in the Bible for the simple reason that they arent in their Bible, and they
figure that if they belonged there, theyd be there. Most Protestants don't have a
clue how the various books that make up their Bible got there, but they have an
implicit trust that whoever made the decision got it right. Therefore, knowing in
advance that the deuterocanonical books arent inspired, they look for reasons to
reject them, just as the atheists look for reasons to reject the rest of the Bible.
What most Protestants dont know is that the people who made the decision as to
which books belong in the Bible did accept the deuterocanonical books. Those
books have been in the Christian canon as long as theres been a Christian canon.
As the Protestant International Bible Commentary notes, The apocryphal books
were excluded from the Hebrew canon at least from A.D. 90 on, but included in the
canon of the Christian church.3 The only reason these books arent in Protestant
Bibles is because the Protestant Reformers rejected them, in spite of the fact that
they had been accepted as Scripture for centuries. As the International Bible
Commentary elsewhere notes, Protestant leaders ignored traditional acceptance of
all the [deuterocanonical books] . . . and refused the status of inspiration to those
books of the Vulgate not found in the Hebrew canon.4
Having said all of this, Id nevertheless like to address some of the objections often
made against the deuterocanonical Old Testament books:
Regarding the allegation that they teach practices that are at variance with the rest
of the Bible, this argument is self-defeating. If the deuterocanonical books are in
fact inspired, then they are part of the Bible, and therefore cannot be at variance
with it. The fact that there are apparent conflicts between some of these books and
some of the other biblical books should not be surprising, because there are many
similar conflicts and difficulties between the other biblical books. For example, 1
Corinthians teaches baptism for the dead (vs. 15:29), and James teaches that we are
justified by works (vs. 2:24), in apparent conflict with Romans 3:28. (By the
way, for this very reason, Martin Luther concluded that James was not inspired,
though he thought it was otherwise good to read).
Regarding prayer for the dead, I dont know of a single Bible verse that condemns
this practice. On the contrary, the New Testament arguably contains an example of
prayer for the dead. In 2 Timothy, Paul says, May the Lord grant mercy to the
household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of
my chains; when he arrived in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me.
(2 Tim. 1:16-17). Its interesting that Paul asked for mercy for Onesiphoruss
household, but not for Onesiphorus himself. Then Paul proceeded to eulogize
Onesiphorus. It seems rather clear that Onesiphorus was dead, and that Paul was
recalling his faithful service. Then Paul says, May the Lord grant that he will find
mercy from the Lord on that day! (2 Tim. 1:18). A prayer for the dead? I think so.
Regarding the allegation that the deuteros teach immoral practices, such as lying,
assassination and magic, I must again point out that this is exactly the same
argument that atheists use against the rest of the Bible. They point out, for
example, that the Hebrew midwives lie to Pharoah (Ex 1:19), and Jacob is
rewarded for stealing Esaus birthright (Gen. 25 and 27). Rahab lies to protect the
Israelite spies (Josh. 2:4-6), and is said to be righteous before God for that very
reason (James 2:25). Even God Himself sends a lying spirit to deceive King Ahab
(1 Kings 22:20-22). In Judges 4:17-22, Jael, the wife of Heber, assassinates Sisera,
the commander of the Canaanite army, by driving a tent peg through his head while
he sleeps. For this she is praised: Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of
Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women (Judges 5:24). In Judges
11:29-40, Jephthah, filled with the Spirit of the Lord, vows to offer in sacrifice
whatever should come out of the door of his house, if the Lord grants him victory
over his enemies. The Lord does, and when Jephthah returns home, his daughter is
the first thing to come out of the house. After granting her two months to weep
with her friends, he sacrifices her. In 1 Samuel 28, Saul has the spirit of the prophet
Samuel conjured up by magic.
In light of all this, it should be obvious that if the deuteros are to be rejected
because they allegedly teach immoral things, then some of the other books of the
Bible are going to have to be rejected for exactly the same reason. Whats sauce for
the goose is sauce for the gander.
Regarding the allegation that the deuteros abound in historical and geographical
inaccuracies and anachronisms, I must point out once again, that atheists allege the
same things about some of the other Biblical books. For example, they will say that
there is no historical evidence that the Medes were a world power in the period
between the neo-Babylonians and the Persians (see Dan. 2:31-45, 7:1-7). They will
point out that Daniel refers to Darius as Darius the Mede, but Darius was really
king of Persia (from 522 to 486 B.C.). Also, they will point out that Belshazzar was
the son of Nabonidus (556-539 B.C), not Nebuchadnezzar. As the Protestant
International Bible Commentary points out,
Only those books can be judged canonical that are free from contradictions,
inaccuracies, inconsistencies, peculiar practices, etc. . . . But if this criterion
was (and is) used against the Apocrypha it might also have been (and was)
used against the Hebrew Bible itself. Had the question of its canonicity
rested purely upon standards such as this it is impossible to see how the Jews
could ever have come to accept the OT books as being of divine authority.5
The allegations of historical error are usually directed against the books of Judith
and Tobit (see Josh McDowells comment above), but both of those books are
parables. They are not meant to be taken as a literal history any more than Jesuss
story of the prodigal son is meant to describe an actual family. The author of Tobit
makes it very clear that his protagonist, Tobit, is fictional. He says that Tobit is the
uncle of Ahiqar, who was a well-known character in ancient Semitic folklore,
similar to Aladdin or Jack the Giant Killer in modern folklore. Any ancient
reader would know immediately that Tobit must be fictional. Likewise, the hero of
the book of Judith is a fictional character named Judith, which means Jewish
woman. The antagonist is Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians
(Judith 1:1). Now, everyone knows that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the
Babylonians. The author of Judith surely knew that too. This error is so obvious,
that its too obvious. It would be like a modern author referring to Adolf Hitler,
who ruled over the Soviet Union. This is simply the authors hint, right in the first
verse, that the story is a parable, not a historical account.
It should be obvious that none of these arguments against the deuteros have any
more merit than similar arguments against the rest of the Bible. If any of them
proved that the deuteros were not inspired, they would likewise prove that a
number of other biblical books were not inspired. Quod nimis probat, nihil probat
What proves too much, proves nothing.

End Notes
1
Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask
About the Christian Faith, (San Bernardino, CA: Heres Life Publishers, Inc.,
1980), 15, 17.
2
Ibid, 37-38.
3
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,
International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1986), 34.
4
Ibid, 37, 35.
5
Ibid, 37.
| Home | Objections Regarding the Apocrypha |
Copyright 2000 by Gary Hoge