₦airaland Forum

Even if I want to reason with you,on what basis are you describing these books as spurious and uninspired?

I will advise you to stay clear of discourses u have no idea about

Ukutsgp:
the books in the bible has been 66. it was the roman catholic church that added the spurious uninspired apocryphal books to it to support their ungodly traditions and dogma.

comment anything u like buh dont castigate ma church...........if d ungodly traditions or dogma dey vex u,go hug transformer

The Apocrypha Was Not Used as Inspired
Scripture by the New Testament Writers
The Patristic Writers Were Far From Unanimous in
Their Use of the Apocrypha
The Majority of Early Christians Who Prepared
Lists of the Old Testament Canon Specifically
Excluded the Apocrypha
The Mere Presence of the Apocrypha in the
Septuagint Does Not Mean That the Apocrypha is
Canonical
There is No Clear Evidence That the Apocryphal
Books Were Even Included in the Septuagint Until
the 3rd Century
The Apocrypha Was Indeed Added to the Canon in
1546 by the Council of Trent as Specific
Response to the Reformation
The Apocrypha Fails Several Basic Requirements
for Canonicity

Was the Apocrypha Ever
Considered To Be Part of
the Jewish Scripture?


One of the major pillars of support for the
Apocrypha upon which the Catholic religion rests
is the claim that, because these books were found
in the Septuagint, that this means that these
books were considered part of the Jewish canon,
and thus should be accepted by the Christian
churches as Scripture.


The first question which ought to be asked and
answered is, "Why should Christians look to the
Jews for answers concerning the extent of the Old
Testament canon?" The reason is found in the
testimony of the inspired writing of Paul in
Romans,

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what
profit is there in circumcision? Much every way:
chiefly, because that unto them were committed
the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

By the testimony of God's Word we see that the
Jews had been given the responsibility and
privilege of protecting, transmitting, and
propagating the Scriptures, the inspired writings
given as revelation by God to man. Hence, it is to
the Jews, and to the general consensus which
they had developed before the time of Christ,
which we should first look.

It must be first and foremost noted that the
apocryphal books were not included in the
Hebrew canon, and never appeared in the Hebrew
Bibles. Through a rather drawn out process, the
extent of the Hebrew canon had stabilised during
the intertestamental period. During this period of
time, the general three-fold division of the
Scriptures had solidified, and the 39 books of the
Old Testament were reckoned among these three
divisions:

The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy
The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, I and II
Samuel (united), I and II Kings (united), Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the twelve "Minor" Prophets
(united)
The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah
(united), and I and II Chronicles (united)


It was by this division that the Hebrew Old
Testaments were bound in the scrolls. The
apocryphal books did not appear among these
scriptures in any of the three divisions. The
reason for this is simple: The Jews did not
consider the apocryphal works to be inspired
scripture, and the testimony of Jewish authorities
on this matter confirms that the Jews considered
the prophetic, inspiring spirit to have departed
from Israel during the time of Artaxerxes, king of
Persia (468-425 BC).


Josephus, speaking in a manner which indicates
that his opinion was the general and prevailing
one among his countrymen, said thus,

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of
books among us, disagreeing from and
contradicting one another, but only twenty-two
books, which contain the records of all the past
times; which are justly believed to be divine; and
of them five belong to Moses, which contain his
laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind
till his death. This interval of time was little short
of three thousand years; but as to the time from
the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes,
king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the
prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down
what was done in their times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to God,
and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is
true, our history hath been written since
Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been
esteemed of the like authority with the former by
our forefathers , because there hath not been an
exact succession of prophets since that time..."

Here, we see Josephus relating several important
pieces of information. First, we see that a closed
canon was the prevailing view of Jews at and
before his time, for he speaks of the books
written after the time of Artaxerxes as being less
esteemed by the Jewish forefathers. Thus, it was
not just Jews in his day (in the latter part of the
1st century AD) reacting to some supposed
Christian use of the Apocrypha (which didn't
come until later, actually, and was far less
prevalent than some would have us to believe)
who rejected the apocryphal books. This body of
literature was also rejected as canon and held in
lower esteem by Jews in the intertestamental
period long before the Christian era.

Second, we see that Josephus confirms the
departure of the prophetic spirit from Israel after
the time of Artaxerxes (thus, the canon ended
with Nehemiah, Ezra, Malachi, and the Chronicles,
all of which were written during the period of
Artaxerxes Longimanus' reign, circa 450-425 BC).
Third, we also see that Josephus particularly
ascribes divine status to the books written before
or during Artaxerxes' reign, which was pointedly
denied to those written after.

Josephus states that there were twenty-two
books, two less than that found in the traditional
Hebrew Old Testament. This difference can be
ascribed to his joining of Jeremiah with
Lamentations and Ruth with Judges. This
correlates with the twenty-two book Old
Testament canon held to by most early Christian
writers who mention the subject, as will be seen
below.

Josephus was not the only Jewish writer to lend
evidence to the idea that the Jewish canon was
closed during the intertestamental period. The
Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus, of Alexandria
(20 BC - 40 AD), was a prolific writer. In his
writings, he repeatedly quotes from and uses all
39 of the canonical Old Testament books,
pointedly ascribes divine inspiration to many of
them, and clearly recognises the same three-fold
division of the canon which was indicated both by
Josephus and by the early church. Never once
does he quote from or allude to an apocryphal
work. Hence, he provides both negative and
positive evidence regarding the rejection of the
Apocrypha from the Jewish canon. He recognises
positively what is regarded as canonical, both by
his direct statement regarding some books, and
his infered view as seen by his view of the three-
fold canon. He also negatively recognises what is
not canonical, by his disuse of a rather large
body of Jewish literature which was readily
available to him (his being in Alexandria, where
most of these books has first been written and
circulated) and could have been used if he had
been inclined to do so. Though this is an
argument from silence (not always the best kind
to make, mind you), it would seem to be a pretty
good one in this case, as the type of literature
which the apocryphal books represent (historic,
pietistic, and wisdom literature) is very similar to
that found in many of the canonical books. In
fact, many of the same specific concepts are
shared between the two sets of books. Thus, if
these books were viewed as inspired, Philo could,
and probably would, have made ready use of
them to support the arguments he made on a
great number of issues.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, the record of Jewish
Essene religious writings from the
intertestamental period and shortly after, are
likewise very scant in their testimony to the
Apocrypha. Whereas the scrolls have been found
to represent every book in the Old Testament
except Esther, Nehemiah, and Obadiah, the
evidence for the Apocrypha is very sparing. In
fact, the only portions of the Apocrypha to have
been found among the over 800 scrolls recovered
are three scrolls, containing portions of
Ecclesiasticus (Chapter 6 in Hebrew, scroll
2Q18) 3 , Tobit (in Aramaic, scroll 4Q196), and the
Letter of Jeremiah (vv. 43-44 in Greek, 7Q2)
Whereas anywhere from eight to ten
commentaries on canonical Old Testament books
have been found (the number varies due to
controversy over whether a couple are actually
"commentaries" in the accepted sense), there has
not been found one bit of evidence to date for any
sort of commentary or expository work regarding
any apocryphal book.

Further, scholars suspect that the scrolls
containing the fragments of apocryphal works
may not have even been copied by the Qumran
scribes themselves, but were rather brought in
from outside at a later date . It cannot even be
determined whether these books were present at
Qumran before or after the time of Christ, so
there is no positive reason to claim (as many
Catholic apologists will suggest) that the
presence of apocryphal books in the Qumran
caves necessarily indicates that these books were
viewed as canonical by the Essenes. These books
may very well have been completely ignored by
the early scribes, as would seem to fall in line
with the testimony of Josephus concerning the
lower esteem in which those books were held as
compared to the canon. Further, the mere
presence of these fragments of Ecclesiasticus,
Tobit, and the Letter of Jeremiah do not
conclusively indicate that the Essenes included
these books in their canon, as the Dead Sea
Scrolls as a body contain fragments of numerous
other apocryphons and pseudographical works,
such as the Book of Giants, the Book of Jubilees,
I Enoch, the Book of Noah, etc. which have never
been under serious consideration for inclusion in
the Jewish canon.

Another bit of evidence presented by the Qumran
scrolls is found in the Essene Manual of
Discipline, which functioned as a sort of
"rulebook" for the behaviour of entrants into the
sect, and regulated their behaviour. The testimony
of this Manual of Discipline is against the use of
the Apocrypha as scripture. The Manual of
Discipline, along with another Essene work known
as the Zadokite fragments, repeatedly quote from
Deuteronomy, Numbers, Isaiah, Proverbs, and
Leviticus, using the literary formula, "It is
written". The Zadokite fragments also use the
phrase "God said" in reference to portions of
scripture from Malachi, Amos, Zechariah, Hosea,
Deuteronomy, Numbers, Isaiah, and Micah. While
these works also quote from various apocryphal
works (both those of interest to this discussion,
and those outside the Catholic canon), these
formulas which indicate the ascription of
inspiration are NEVER used.

Moving on, we see that this ancient testimony to
the Jewish canon was affirmed by Jewish
religious leaders in the Christian era. In AD 90, the
so-called "Council" of Jamnia was assembled in
the coastal town of Jamnia. Roman Catholic and
liberal Protestant historians make much of this
council, basically casting it as some sort of
formal Jewish religious council which was
convened for the express purpose of determining
the Jewish canon. Further then, many Catholic
apologists take up this line of reasoning and state
that the Jewish council of rabbis determined a
smaller canon than had been used before this
time, as a reaction to the Christians who were
proving so successful at propagating their faith
with the larger (i.e. Catholic) canon which
included the Apocrypha. They will say that the
Jewish rabbis arbitrarily decided to throw out the
apocryphal books since they were being used to
such great success by Christians in converting
Jews and others to their religion. Of course, this
argument falls short for several reasons.
If the Jews were going to get rid of books which
Christians were using to great effect in proving
the claims of Jesus as the Messiah, then they
would also have had to have gotten rid of such
books as Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, and the
Psalms, for we readily see the testimony of the
early church from both the Bible and from the
apostolic and post-apostolic patristic writers as
to their heavy reliance on books such as these to
prove the claims made about Christ. In fact, the
testimony of the patristic writers, which will be
investigated in much greater detail below, shows
very little reliance upon the apocryphal works
until at least two centuries AFTER Christ, and
over a century after Jamnia. The sub-apostolic
authors, who wrote at and shortly after the time
of Jamnia, were almost completely silent
regarding the Apocrypha, and the few places
where they quote or allude to these books show
no reliance upon them for actual teaching of
doctrine or practice.

Further, we should note the apocryphal books do not contain the
mark of propheticity upon them (they contain
errors, contradictions internally, and
contradictions with canonical books). The one
passage in an apocryphal book routinely relied
upon by supporters of the Apocrypha as providing
an "important" Messianic prophecy (Wisdom
2:12-20) actually contradicts doctrine concerning
the Lord Jesus taught in the Gospels.

What in fact happened at Jamnia was far from a
"council" in the sense in which the word was used
in the early church. It was not a body which came
together for the purpose of issuing authoritative
findings on matter of faith, doctrine, or practice.
Rather, it was a convention of many learned
rabbis who had fled Jerusalem after the
destruction of that city in 70 AD. The exact
purpose of the gathering is to this day speculated
upon. The actually agenda which the rabbis
carried out was a series of discussions on several
books in the Jewish canon which, for various
reasons, were considered doubtful in their
canonicity by some (but which had not been
previously REJECTED as canonical). As best as
can be understood from latter rabbinical literature
(the only source we have for the goings-on at
Jamnia), the discussion centred on the following
books:

Esther - Questioned by some because of the lack
of reference to the name of God. Doubts were
dispelled by the fact that, though it lacks direct
reference to God, the overriding providential hand
of God can be clearly seen throughout the book.

Song of Solomon - Doubted by some because of
the "erotic" nature of certain passages in the
book. This book was cleared by the rabbis after
they accepted a more allegorical interpretation of
the book (much like some modern Evangelicals).

Ecclesiastes - Questioned because it supposedly
contained statements which contradicted other
portions of scriptures. These difficulties were
dispelled by careful cross-study of the scriptures
in question.

Ruth, Proverbs, Ezekiel, and possibly Daniel and
Ezra were also discussed, but doubts which may
have been entertained by certain rabbis were
dispelled during the course of the discussions.
What is important to keep in mind about Jamnia
is that it was NOT a council which was convened
to determine the limits of the canon of the Jewish
scriptures. The participants already understood
what the limits of the scriptural canon were, and
their discussions took place under the assumption
that the books being discussed were in the canon,
and that the canon as it traditionally had been
was being affirmed and defended. This explains
why there was no mention of the apocryphal
books made at this council. Quite contrary to
Roman Catholic claims, the Council of Jamnia did
not "remove" the apocryphal books from the
Jewish canon. Rather, the Council merely
discussed a few "questionable" books already in
the canon (and accepted as such by all, with
varying degrees of surity). The Apocrypha was
never (as we've seen above) in the canon, and
hence it did not even enter into consideration at
this time.

What the Council of Jamnia implicitly did was
affirm something which Judaism had known since
the days of the Maccabees, that the canon had
closed during the time of Artaxerxes' reign, and
only those books accepted up to that time were
rightfully in the canon. In fact, Jamnia's effect on
the Old Testament canon was roughly equivalent
to that which the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397
AD had on the New Testament canon: Affirmed
what those who had already been using the
scriptures in question for hundreds of years
already knew.

in my next post when i'm free, i will prove to you that that the apocrypha contained in the roman catholic bible was not used as inspired scriptures by the new testament writers. Goodluck.

[quote author=Ukutsgp post=27799063]Why is it that the roman catholic went and added more books to the inspired books in the bible?

Did they have the right to do so?

Are those additional book accepted by the early church?

Are they inspired of God?

Are the teachings contained in those books in line with what is found in the 66 books of the bible?

Those are some questions that are begging for answers.

What do you have to say about
i think, The compilation of books you call the Bible was arranged by the catholic church. There are many many books that didn't make it into the first compilation and some didn't even make it to the second compilation. They didn't add to the word of God. Though i don't think that the jews ever used the deutrocanonical books. We're not judaists anyway, are we? Infact, i personally think they were wrong to leave out some books like the teachings of the apostles and that of mary madgalene, philip and so on

I will advise you to always do a proper research before you embark on your next copy and paste venture to avoid making a fool of yourself.

First and foremost there was no formal Jewish Canon before the council of jamnia in 100ce.If at all we. Have to talk about a pre-jamnia Jewish canon, that would be the Septuagint which actually contained the so-called apocryphal, ande was repeatedly quoted by the apostles.
I would advise you to read and study and not just copy and paste.

For you to say Josephus did not make any allusions to the so called apocryphal is ridiculous. The famous story of the Jewish high priest commissioning 72 scholars to to translate the Septuagint is credited to Josephus. Most of the stories and Judas macabees and even extra-biblical accounts of the hasmonean dynasty is well covered in Josephus's Jewish wars.

My brother try and study to know the truth and just shoo doing copy and paste from anti-Catholic sites without recourse to historical and theological facts.

5 years ago I got a copy of Josephus's complete works.The book is even bigger than the bible itself.

Josephus wrote three major works 1the life of Josephus that is like his autobiography.2.the Jewish antiquities and 3 the jewi wars.

[quote author=PrettyGaby post=27838931][/quote]i dnt think u read what i posted above. anyway, let me finish what i have first. let us not give room for ignorance. when i finish, then i will respond to your comments. i still have long way to go.

For anyone to say the dead sea scrolls did not also contain the so called apocryphal books is ridiculous. The books found among the dead sea scrolls are not just the deuteronocanonical books But also lots of extra biblical books including the book of Enoch.

Lastly even the apostles themselves quoted outside the 39books as we have Jude quoting the book of Enoch and assumption of moses.

Mathew even quoted a scripture that is now lost in "he shall be called a Nazarene".
I
All this points to the fact that the was no Jewish canon before the end of the first century

Ukutsgp,

Guy, dont you have shame at all? You made a horrible blunder with the op and you are still arguing that you are right?

The bible has many books and were reduced to 66....books werent added but reduced.

The first recognised christian Canon was the synod of hippo in 393ce which produced the 73 books of the bible.that decision was further reaffirmed at the council of carthage in 393ce,419ce and finally by the council of trent in 1546 ce.

The Jewish council of jamnia in 100ce produced 39 books and not 66.This council rejected Jesus and the entire NT.it was only at the Westminster declaration of faith in the 18th century did protestant finally decide to combine the Catholic new testament with the Canon of jamnia

Ukutsgp:
i dnt think u read what i posted above. anyway, let me finish what i have first. let us not give room for ignorance. when i finish, then i will respond to your comments. i still have long way to go.

okeydoke

JackBizzle:
Ukutsgp,

Guy, dont you have shame at all? You made a horrible blunder with the op and you are still arguing that you are right?

Let Me Officialy Welcum U To Nairaland Most Inteligent Poster. "Ukutsgp"

@chukwudi

it is nt by those your ranting that will prove the truth of this matter. People must know the truth regarding the bible and those uninspired books that the roman catholic have added to the books that were canonised.

There was no clear evidence pointing to the fact that those books were ever accepted as scriptures. It was only the 66 books in the authorised kjv of the bible that were canonised and recognised as scriptures. The additional books you people accepted as canon were not. U people added those books to simply support some of your ungodly doctrines and practices which are at variance with the word of God.

You have to wait for me to finish my post which is the truth before your ranting.

The rcc is alway known for falsehood.

Let me exposed everything about the apocrypha here, before people start swallowing all your lies. The worst thing is that people dnt want to read and be informed, they just like talking in ignorance.

I still have more to expose. So just wait and be ready to read it up. Dnt be scared. U can tell me to stop the exposition now, it is never too late

The truth must be blown open

JackBizzle:
Ukutsgp,

Guy, dont you have shame at all? You made a horrible blunder with the op and you are still arguing that you are right?

The bible has many books and were reduced to 66....books werent added but reduced.

this is the ignorance i'm talking about. Pls mention the many books that were removed? Is it 90 or 80 and it was reduced to 66? Which people reduced it? Answer those questions.

vest:
Let Me Officialy Welcum U To Nairaland Most Inteligent Poster. "Ukutsgp"

stop this ok.

Ukutsgp:
@chukwudi

it is nt by those your ranting that will prove the truth of this matter. People must know the truth regarding the bible and those uninspired books that the roman catholic have added to the books that were canonised.

There was no clear evidence pointing to the fact that those books were ever accepted as scriptures. It was only the 66 books in the authorised kjv of the bible that were canonised and recognised as scriptures. The additional books you people accepted as canon were not. U people added those books to simply support some of your ungodly doctrines and practices which are at variance with the word of God.

You have to wait for me to finish my post which is the truth before your ranting.

The rcc is alway known for falsehood.

Let me exposed everything about the apocrypha here, before people start swallowing all your lies. The worst thing is that people dnt want to read and be informed, they just like talking in ignorance.

I still have more to expose. So just wait and be ready to read it up. Dnt be scared. U can tell me to stop the exposition now, it is never too late

The truth must be blown open

Will you quit making a fool of yourself here!!!you keep saying 66 books were canonized but you are yet to tell us the church council that canonized the 66 books.You make me wonder the amount of iq in some humans. I am about to sleep now and will respond properly tomorrow

chukwudi44:
Will you quit making a fool of yourself here!!!you keep saying 66 books were canonized but you are yet to tell us the church council that canonized the 66 books.You make me wonder the amount of iq in some humans. I am about to sleep now and will respond properly tomorrow

it means u have not been reading what i posted. continue to deceive yourself

The Apocrypha Was Not
Used as Inspired Scripture
by the New Testament
Writer


Despite the claims of many Roman Catholic
apologists, the Apocrypha provided no direct
influence upon the production of the New
Testament, though it can be granted that there
were indirect influences resulting from the cultural
milieu in which both sets of literature were
produced. As will be explored below, it is unlikely
that the Greek New Testament in use in Palestine
at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ's ministry
was the same as the present Greek Septuagint. It
is even less likely that the Apocrypha would have
been included in this Greek Old Testament, and
almost certainly not as Scripture.


First let us explore the use to which the New
Testament puts the Greek Old Testament. It has
been claimed by some that the New Testament
always refers to the Septuagint when quoting the
Old Testament. Yet, this statement is somewhat
overblown. Though the Septuagint forms the
majority of quotations, it certainly is not
represented in the New Testament in all cases.
According to Moorman, the breakdown of the
agreement of New Testament quotations with the
versions of the Old Testament is as follows:
Out of 263 direct quotations of the Old Testament
in the New
,
88 correspond closely to the Septuagint
64 represent the Septuagint with some variation
37 have the same meaning as the Septuagint
passage, but expressed with different words
16 agree with the Hebrew Masoretic over against
the Septuagint
20 differ from both the Hebrew Masoretic and the
Septuagint

The remaining 38 quotations presumably
represent passages where both versions were in
substantial agreement. Note also that this data
deals with independent quotations, not counting
multiple quotations of the same verse across
different books.

From this, we see that at many points, the
Hebrew Masoretic quotations are preferred over
those of the primitive Septuagint. At other points,
this primitive document seems to be preferred
instead of the Masoretic. The most likely reason
is given thus:

"It is agreed that the Septuagint was far from
perfect, and no claim can be advanced for the
divine inspiration of the translators. However, if
we observe the manner in which the Apostles
refer to the Old Testament Scriptures, we see a
striking indication of the inspiration under which
they themselves wrote. When they refer to the
Septuagint, they do so under the supernatural
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of
the original revelation. His authority is therefore
higher than that of the translator.


"This higher authority is shown in three ways.
Firstly, where the LXX translators were correct,
the Apostles quote verbally and literally from the
Septuagint, and thus reminded their readers of the
Scriptures with which they were already familiar
in that particular form. Secondly, where the LXX
is incorrect, the Apostles amend it, and make their
quotations according to the Hebrew, translating it
anew into Greek, and improving upon the
defective rendering. Thirdly, when it was the
purpose of the Holy Spirit to point out more
clearly in what sense the quotations from the Old
Testament Scriptures were to be understood, the
Apostles were guided to restate the revealed truth
more fully or explicitly. By the hands of the
Apostles, the Holy Spirit thus delivers again His
own inspired message, in order to make more
clear to later generations what had been formerly
declared through the prophets in earlier ages. By
giving again the old truth in new words, the Holy
Ghost infallibly imparted teaching which lay
hidden in the old, but which could only be fully
understood by a later generation if given in a
different form."


The fact that the passages which do exhibit the
Septuagintic sense vary with respect to their
verbal constructions (some very close, others with
words changed but the meaning kept, etc.) would
seem to argue as well for a more primitive Greek
Old Testament which contained differences from
the present Septuagint but which was yet fairly
close to that document, as will be argued below.

We should understand that the appeal by the New
Testament writers to Old Testament quotations
from a Greek Old Testament version doesn't
necessarily mean that the Masoretic Hebrew itself
is less useful or corrupted. When the Apostles
draw upon the Greek Old Testament as a source
of their quotation, this doesn't imply that the
Hebrew Masoretic was incorrect at that point.
The Greek and the Masoretic may be both
substantially the same in meaning, but differ in
wording or construction due to the vagarities of
translation between languages. It is indeed
possible that, by the inestimable working and
foreknowledge of God, that the translators of the
various Greek texts provided particular translation
which would later be used by the Spirit in the
New Testament to more fully elucidate various
passages in the Old Testament while retaining the
explicit sense of the passage, as per the principle
of "The Old Testament as the New Concealed,
and the New Testament as the Old Revealed".





this principles as used through the apostles
certainly seems to be the case in those passages
where neither the Masoretic nor the Greek Old
Testament are closely followed.

It seems certain that, even with the presence and
probable familiarity with a Palestinian Greek Old
Testament at this time, the Lord Jesus Christ and
the Apostles were still familiar with and used the
Old Testament in Hebrew. The Lord makes
statements in the Gospels which seem to
explicitly show His day to day reliance upon the
Old Testament in Hebrew, and that when He
thought of them and referred to them, it was to
the Hebrew. In one of His most incisive
statements concerning Biblical preservation, the
Lord said,


"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)

in this statement, the Lord explicitly refers to the
Hebrew scriptures. The jot is the smallest of the
Hebrew letters, and a tittle is any of the small
strokes which serve to differentiate between
Hebrew letters which are orthographically the
same. Both are unique to the Hebrew when taken
in relation to the Greek, and His statement
explicitly directs the reader, and at the time His
listeners, to the Hebrew Old Testament, not the
Greek. Further, when the Lord read the scriptures
and expounded upon them in the synagogues (as,
for example, in Luke 4:17-22), He must
necessarily have done so from the Hebrew scrolls,
as that language only has been used in the
synagogical readings of the Scriptures, even up to
the present. This view is supported by Bruce, who
says,

"When Jesus was about to read the second
lesson in the Nazareth synagogue...it was most
probably a Hebrew scroll that he received."




thus, as the lord used the Hebrew scriptures
scriptures, it necessarily follows that He was
using the Hebrew canon of 22 books as well,
without the Apocrypha. As the claim to the
presence of the Apocrypha in an "Alexandrian"
canon is already dubious, even more so would be
such a claim for the Hebrew canon amongst the
Jews of Palestine, who had never been separated
from their spiritual heritage after the return from
the Babylonian exile. That the Lord makes
reference to the explicit Hebrew canon is shown
at several points in the Gospels. For instance,

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias,
whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar." (Matthew 23:35)


In this passage, the Lord records a concise
history of the persecution of righteous men of God
for speaking the Word of Truth through the
entirety of the Hebrew scriptures, with Abel being
the first recorded (Genesis 4: to the last
recorded, Zechariah the priest (II Chronicles
24:20-21). This apparent order follows the
traditional ordering of the Hebrew books, starting
with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles,
whereas the Septuagintic order most commonly
used ends with the book of Daniel, specifically
with Bel and the Dragon. Further, the Lord
commonly spoke of, and thus delineated, the Old
Testament scriptures (the only ones present at
the time of His earthly ministry) using the term
"the Law and the Prophets", which encompassed
both the Pentateuch and all the other Jewish
canonical books (see Matthew 7:12, 11:13, 22:40,
etc.) Likewise, on occasion He would fully
delineate the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,
making individual reference to the Pentateuch, the
earlier prophets, and the other writings (thus, the
Tanak, see Luke 24:27-44). And at other times,
such as Matthew 5:18, He used "the Law" as a
term to encompass all of God's Word. However,
the apocryphal books were never classed within
any of these three categories, and hence fall
outside the sphere of the Lord's reference.

Certain apologists for the Roman Catholic religion
counter by claiming that the New Testament
contains many pointed quotations and other
references to the Apocryphal books, arguing that
this means that the Apocrypha was part of the
Scriptures used by the Lord and His Apostles.
However, this claim is not substantiated by facts.
Many of these so-called quotations of the
Apocrypha turn out simply to be quotations from
canonical books, though the wording in the
apocryphal book may be similar.

Examples of this type would include:


The statement in Matthew 9:36 concerning "sheep
having no shepherd" is attributed to Judith 11:19.
However, this phrase is a pointed reference to I
Kings 22:17, and certainly echoes as well
Numbers 27:17, Ezekiel 34:5-6, and Zechariah
10:2

In John 3:13, Jesus' statement "and no man hath
ascended up to heaven" is attributed to Baruch
3:29. This statement, however, is part of an
answer to the same phrase in the form of a
question in Proverbs 30:4.

Paul's remembrance in Romans 4:17 of the
promise to Abraham that he would be a father of
many nations is falsely said to come from
Ecclesiasticus 44:19, but it is, of course, found in
Genesis 17:5

The Pauline attribution of sacrifices to idols as
being really sacrifices to demons in I Corinthians
10:20 is claimed as a reference to Baruch 4:7.
However, this point is made quite clearly in
Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, and Psalm
106:36-37

The admonition to "lift up the hands which hang
down, and the feeble knees" found in Hebrews
12:12 is said to arise from Ecclesiasticus 25:23,
yet we find that it is a near direct quotation of
Isaiah 35:3, and the sentiment is additionally
echoed in Job 4:3-4

James' call for Christians to be "swift to hear,
slow to speak, slow to wrath" in James 1:19
supposedly comes from Ecclesiasticus 5:10-11.
However, this passage is a loose paraphrase of
Ecclesiastes 5:1-2, and also finds witness in
Proverbs 10:19


Many claims of New Testament reference to the
Apocrypha rely upon even less foundation. For
example,

The slaughter of the innocents by Herod as
recorded in Matthew 2:16 is said by some
apologists to be foreshadowed in Wisdom 11:8.
However, Wisdom 11:8 specifically is referring to
the slaying of the Hebrew children by Pharaoh, an
event found in Exodus 1:16-17

In Matthew 12:42, it is claimed that the "wisdom
of Solomon" which the queen of the south (Queen
of Sheba) came to hear from this king is really
the Wisdom of Solomon, as in the apocryphal
book which wasn't written until nearly nine
centuries after her time. We know that the
passage spoken by the Lord is that which is
recorded in the parallel accounts of I Kings 10
and II Chronicles 9

Judith 13:18 is said to be the source of the
statement by the angel of God to Mary, found in
Luke 1:28 and 42, of "Blessed art thou among
women". However, we see this phrase first applied
to Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite in Judges
5:24, in Deborah's song after the slaying of
Sisera. In fact, the whole story behind the book of
Judith seems to be loosely patterned after that of
Jael and Sisera in Judges 4-5, and Judges may
well have been the impetus for the later
nationalistic writing.

most of all the other claims for reference which
are made are similarly along these lines. Now, it
can be granted that certain passages in the New
Testament do in fact make reference to events
which are recorded in apocryphal books. For
instance, Hebrews 11:35 and 11:38 speak on
events which were recorded in the books of
Maccabees. However, it doesn't logically follow
that this gives canonicity to these two books.
Rather, the author of Hebrews simply makes a
reference to events which were probably quite
well known among Jews, as part of their national
heritage. The inclusion of these events in the
Maccabees is (given the nature of these books)
logical, but undeterminative. The Bible's merely
making a reference to an event does not impute
inspiration and canonicity to a document which
also happens to record that event. If it did, then
we would be compelled to consider as canonical
certain documents from Roman historians which
record the taxation of the Roman world by
Augustus Caesar (Luke 2:1), or Assyrian
cuneiform records which record the conquest of
Israel by Sargon II (II Kings 17:6).


Similarity between themes found in the
apocryphal books and the true canon are also not
an argument for the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
As a religious people who enjoyed special contact
with and revelation from God, it is not surprising
that a knowledge of the holy, however diluted it
may have eventually become because of
apostasy, would be passed down through the
generations of Israel (see Psalm 78:4-6). Thus,
one would expect to see similar themes, obtained
and understood from the true canon, presented in
later works of literature which were produced.
And in fact, one does see this in the apocryphal
works. The books of the Apocrypha do contain
much truth, but it is truth which is derived from
the true canon of the Old Testament, and is in an
adulterated form. Much of the supposed reliance
of the New Testament upon the apocryphal books
stems from this. Many of the claims to
apocryphal references in the New Testament are
rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be
viewed as belonging to this category of "general
truths". These truths, based upon the Truth of
God's Word, would naturally also appear in
literature which was consciously patterned after
the earlier canonical literature. However, this
doesn't lend inspiration to these books
themselves.

furthermore, we must understand that the ministry of
the Lord Jesus Christ and the early Church did
not exist in a vacuum. They were a part of the
fabric of the social life and context of Palestinian
Hebrew life in the early-to-mid 1st century. This
social context included a literary history which
contained the apocryphal books, and which was
based upon the combined, shared experiences of
the Jewish people. While these books were not
recognised as canon, they still existed and were
part of this combined socio-religious experience
which the 1st century Jews had in their cultural
repositories. So, no, it should not be particularly
surprising to us if the New Testament relates a
challenge to the teachings of the Lord Jesus
Christ which was made by certain of His
detractors, the Saduccees, and whose primary
element was drawn from the apocryphal book of
Tobit (this being the resurrection of the woman
with seven successive husbands through Levirate
marriages - Matthew 22:23-32). It should not be
surprising to us if the author of Hebrews
catalogues the faithful exploits of martyrs from
the Maccabean era (Hebrews 11:25, and possibly
v. 28). It should not be surprising to us if certain
passages even seem to echo phraseology found
in the Apocrypha, and which probably represented
common theological understanding among the
Jews at this time (such as the Johannine
reference to the Lord Jesus as "King of Kings" in
Revelation 17:14, which follows the title used in II
Maccabees 13:4, but which yet again, finds its
original basis in the use of "Lord of Kings" in
Daniel 2:47). There is no conflict between these
usages and the principle of divine, verbal, plenary
inspiration of the Scriptures, nor do these usages
necessarily imply inspiration on the part of any
apocryphal books.


Furthermore, we must remember that many of the
New Testament writers were well-educated men.
Certainly Paul could be said to fit into this
category. Likewise, Luke the physician and
Matthew the customs official would qualify in this
regard without objection. As such, these men
would have been in a position to have been made
familiar with these other literary works. Even the
fishermen Peter, John, and James, while being
"unlearned men" (in the cultural context, meaning
that they hadn't studied in the rabbinical schools
- the same way the term is applied to the Lord
Himself, John 7:15), they were a part of the
Jewish civilisation with this shared Jewish
heritage, and surely were aware of the apocryphal
books and what they said.

There is yet another point which strikes against
the notion of canonicity or inspiration for the
apocryphal books based solely upon references to
them made in the New Testament. The highly-
educated Paul, in inspired New Testament
scripture, quoted three times from the works of
Greek poets . He quotes from men who themselves
were not only uninspired, but also pagans to
boot. These quotations are:

In Acts 17:28, Paul said and Luke wrote, "For in
him we live, and move, and have our being; as
certain also of your own poets have said, For we
are also his offspring." This is a quotation of a
passage from Aratus' Phaenomena

In Titus 1:12-13, Paul quotes a saying from the
6th century BC Cretan poet Epeminides, found in
his De Oraculis, and follows it by saying, "This
witness is true..."

In I Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes from
Menander's Thais .

Now, I am quite certain that no Roman Catholic
apologist would suggest that these quotations by
Paul render these particular Greek poems as
inspired canon. Yet, this is the sort of argument
which is explicitly made concerning the
apocryphal books. Further, we see that in Jude,
other apocryphal books (ones not held by the
Roman Catholic religion to be canon) are quoted
(Jude 9 refers to The Assumption of Moses , and
Jude 14 quotes from The Book of Enoch ). These
quotations in the New Testament are just as valid
as any which can be produced by Catholic
apologists from the "accepted" apocryphal books,
yet the Roman religion does not attribute
canonicity to these two works. Interestingly, we
should note that the three times Paul quotes from
these Greek poets, he was addressing or writing
to Greeks, and the two quotes from the Hebrew
pseudographical books appear in an epistle which
arguably was written with Jewish believers in
mind. These pagan poets and uninspired
pseudographia were quoted because, at the
particular point of the quote, they contained truth
which was not in contradiction to the Truth of
God, and which was used by the writers under
inspiration to make certain points to
knowledgable and receptive audiences. Thus, we
ought to recognise that simple quotation by the
New Testament does not necessarily impute the
status of inspired scripture to the works which
are quoted.


We see this further in that not all of the Old
Testament books are quoted in the New
Testament. The books of Esther, Song of
Solomon, Obadiah, and Ecclesiastes are not
quoted in the New Testament, though the
argument can certainly be made that each is
alluded to somewhat loosely at various points.
However, they are not quoted, while every other
book is. The reason for this is probably as simple
as that there was no specific application to be
made from them at any point in the writing of the
New Testament. This lack of quotation, though,
does not render these books uninspired or
uncanonical, any more than the quotation of
Epeminides makes him an inspired writer of
Scripture. This is because the Old Testament (as
well as the New) derive their status of both
inspiration and canonicity from God, from His
opinion of them, not from man's opinion that they
should be quoted in further revelation. The 39
books of the Hebrew canon are inspired and
canonical because they themselves are revelation
from God, not because they are quoted in the
New Testament. Or, as Unger states:


"Because the writings of the prophets, as soon as
they were issued, had tremendous authority as
inspired Scripture, no formal declaration of their
canonicity was needed to give them sanction. The
divine author who inspired these writings, we may
reasonably believe, acted providentially on behalf
of their acceptance by the faithful. However, their
inspiration and consequent divine authority were
inherent and not dependent on human reception
or lapse of time to give them prestige or until
there were no more living prophets, or any other
factor. Canonical authority is not derived from the
sanction of Jewish priests and leaders of the
Christian church. That authority is in itself."


Thus, we see that the Roman Catholic claims for
the reliance of the New Testament on the
apocryphal books are overblown, ahistorical, and
fall into logical inexactitude.

Bros don't you have any shame at all? Just tell us when and which council decided the 66 books and when the Catholic church added to so -called extra books and not all this baseless copy and paste which you did not even bother to acknowledge the authors.

Quit making a fool of yourself

Ukutsgp:
u are the most ignorant of all. Do u think i'm looking for fame on a faceless forum like this? Monkey like u.

U need to update your knowledge. I dnt even know why i'm replying ur silly post.

how old are you? You curse like a child