Apocryphal Books, Their Origin
The word Apocuypha signifies, concealed, obscure, without authority. In reference to the Bihle, it is einjiloycd to desia;;iate such books as clai(n a phice in the sacred volume, but which are not Canonical. It is said lo have been first used by Melito bishop of Sardis.
An inquiry i ito this subject cannot be uninferestins; to the friends of the Bi!)ie; for it behoves the:n to ascertain, on the best evidence, what l)ooks belong; to the sacred vohiine, and also, on what grounds other books are rejected from the C:vcpn. This subject assumes a higher importance fioni t’le faor, that Christians are niuh divide! on this point; for, some receive as of CanoMicai authority, bixdvs which others reject as spirious, or coiisi(U’r merely as human cotnposilioiis. On sua) a pcjint, every Christian should form his opinion ujion the best information which he can ibttin.
In controversy with the Konianists, this subject meets us at the very threshhold. It is vain to dispute about particular doctrines of Scripture, until it is determined what books are to be received, as Scripture.
It has also bien recently found, that this was a point of great iinpurtance, in the circulation of the Bible. This Book ought not to be distributed, maimed of some of its parts; nor should we circulate mere human compositions, as the word of God. The Committe of the British and Foreign Bible Society, were recently called upon to decide this question, in a case of great practical importance. That noble and Catholic society, have, from time to time, aided the exertions of the pious and liberally minded members of the Romanist church, in circulating their own versions of the New Testament. Here there existed no difference of opinion, as to the books which were Canonical; but they lately received an application from that zealous and indefatigable friend of the Bible, ProfessorVAN’Ess, to grant him aid from their funds, to enable him to put the Old Testament also into circulation, among the people of his communion. To this no objection was at first made; and the funds of the Society w re applied to aid in printing and circulating Bibles which contained the Apocrypha, on the Continent of Europe. But the Auxiliary Bible Society of Edinburg, not being satisfied with this proceeding, sent up to the P.irent Society a protest against it, as being inconsistent with the rarlical principle of their constitution; viz. that they would circulate the Bible without note or comment. This brought the question before tlic Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, under very interesting; circumstances, and the opinion of the friends of the Society appeared to be much divided; so that great fears were entertained, lest it should become the occasion of disturbing the harmony of this important Association. But the business was managed by the Committee, with that consummate wisdom which has uniformly marked their counsels and proceedings. The whole subject was referred to a select and learned sub-committee: who afier mature deliberation, brought in a report, which was adopted, and led to the following wise resolution in the General Committee, viz. “That the funds of the S ciely be applied to the prmting and circulation of the Canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books, which are termed Apocryphal: and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society, and whether such copies consist of the whole,or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound, no other book whatever being bound with them; and farther, that all money grants, to Societies or indivir’uitls, be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
*’ In the Sacred Volume, as it is to be hereafter distributed by the Society, there is to be nothing but rl“‘’ine truth, notbino; but what is aoknowleilfij’d by all Christians to Ke siicli. Of course all may unite in the work of (tistrllnition, even should they regard the Volume as containing but part of the inspi ed writinsrs: just as they might in the circulation of the Pr;ntateuch, or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New Testament. Such harmonious operation would not, however, be possible, if the books of the Apocrypha were mingled, or joined with the rest; and besides, those, who have the strongest oby-ction to the Ap’crjpha, are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in active and liberal efforts to send the word of God to all people.”
This judicious decision of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society depends for its correctnessjon the supposition, that the books of the Apocrypha are not Canonical; fr, whatever may be said about circulating a part of the Bible, it was undoubtedly the original object of this S-ciety to print and circulate the whole of the Sacred Volume. Hence appears the practical importance of the inquiry which we have here instituted, to ascertain,whether these books have any claim, whatever, to a place in the Sacred Canon.
At a very early period of the Christian churchj great pains were taken to distinguish between such books as were inspired and Canonical, and such as were written by uninspired men. It has neve been doubted amons; Christians, that thcCanonical books only, were of divine aullirity, and furnished an infalible rule of faith and pr.ictice; but it has not bi-en agreed what books ought to be considered Canonical, and what Ai)Ocryphal. In regard to those which have already been enumerated, as belonging to the Old Teslament, thp re is a pretty general consent of Jews and Christians, of Romanists and Protestants; but in regard to some other books there is a wide difference of opinion.
The council of Trent in their fourth session gave a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among which are, included, Tobias, Juijith,Wis-
.DOM, ECCLESIASTICUS, BaRUCH, and TWO BO )KS
OFTHt Maccabees.* Besides, they included under the name of Esther and Daniel, certain additional chapters, which are not found in the Hebrew copies. The hook of Esliier is made to consist of sixteen chapters; and prefixed to the book of Daniel is the the histoky of Susanna; the Song of the three Children, is inserted in the third chapter; and the history of Bel and the Dragon is added, at the end of this book. Other books, which are found in the Greek, or Latin Bibles, tney rejected, as Apocryphal; as, the third and fourth books of Esdras ;t the third book of
“See Note A.
f The First and Second books of Esdras, are very frequently called the Third and Fourth; in which case the ‘wo canoiucul books Ezra and NeJieiniah are reckoned th-?
Maccabees; the cli. Psalm; the Appendix to Job;
and the Preface to Lamentations.
Both these classes of books, all denominations of Protestants consider Apocryphal; hut as the Kno:lish churcli,’in her Litiiri;;y, dirpcts, ihat certain lessons shall be read from the former, for the insiructiun of the people, hui not for c.tnfirmation of doctrine, they are retidned in the larger copies of the English Bible, but are not mingled w’ilh the Canonical books, as in the Vulgale, but pUiced at the end of the Old Testament, under the title of, Apocrypha. It is certainly U) be regretted, that these books are permitted to be included in the same volume, which contains the livkly or —
ACLES; THE WOKD OF God; — THE HoLY ScKIP-TTTREs; all of which were given by inspiration: and more to be regretted still, that they shuuld be read in the church, promiscuously with the lessons taken froni the canonical books; especially as no notice is given to the people, that what is
Fh-st and Second: for both these books have been ascribed to Ezra as their author; but these are not mcluded in the Ust ofCanonica] books, sanctioned by the Couiicd of Trent, and therefore they do not come into controver&y. Indeed, the Second of these books is not found even in the Gieek, but only in the Latin Vulgate, and is so replete with tables and false Etatements,that it has never been esteemed of any vakio. They are both however retained in our larger Englif.h Bibles; and are honoured with the foremost place, in the -order of the Apocryphal books.
rea<l from these books is Apocryphal; and as, in the Prayer Book of the Episcopal church the tables which refer to the lessons to be read, have this title prefixed; Tables of lessons of Holy Script w’c to be read at morning and evening prayer throtighoiit the year. Now, however good and instructive these Apocryphal lessons may be, it never can be justified, that they should thus be put on a level with the word of God.*
But it is our object, at present, to show, that none of these books, Canonized by the council of Trent, and inserted in our larger English Bibles, are Canonical.
1. The first argument by which it may be proved that these books do not belong to the Canon of the Old Testament, is, that ihey are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew language, but in the Greek, which was not known to the Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased, and the Canon of the Old Testament was cloacd. It is rendered probable, indeed, that sonic of them were written originally in the Chaldaic; Jerome testifies this to be the fact, in regard to 1. Maccabees, and Ecclcsiaslicus; and he says, that he translated the book of Tobit, out of Clialdee into Latin; but this bouk is now found in the Greek, and there is good reason for believing, that it was
* See Tables prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer; also THE SSixTU Article of Religion, of thu Episcopal Church.
£ written originally, in this language. It is certainj however, that none of these books were composed in the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament
Hoitinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the whole of the Apoci-ypha in pure Hebrew, among the Jews; but he entertains no doubt, that it was translated into that language, in modern times: just as the whole New Testament has recently been translated into pure Hebrew.
It is the common opinion of the Jews,and of the Christian Fathers, that Malachi was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain authors, afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned Canonical; and there is good reason for believing, that those books were written long after the time of Ezra and Malachi; and some of them, perhaps, later than the commencement of the Christian era.
2. These books, though probably written iiy .Tews, have never been received into the Canon, by that people. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the same mind. Josephus declares, “That no more than twenty two books were received as inspired by his nation.’’ Philo who refers often to the Old Testament, in his writings, never makes the least mention of them; nor are ihey recognized in the Talmud, as Canonical. Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbies expressly reject them. Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, says, “They are received by Christians, not by us.”
R. Gedaliaii, after giving a catalogue of llie books of (lie Old Testament with some account of their authors, adds these words, “It is worth while to know that the nations of the world wrote many other books, which arc included in their system of sacred books, but arc not in our hands.” To which he adds, “They say that some of these are found in the Chaldee; sonic in the Arabic; and some in the Greek language.”
11. AzARiAii ascribes the book called, the Wisdom OF Solomon, to Philo; and R. Gedaliaii ia speaking of the same book says, ‘< That if Solomon ever wrote it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to send it to some of the kings in the remotest parts of the East.” ‘’ But,” says he, ‘’ Ezra put his hand only to those books which were published by the prophets, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language; and oui- wise men prudently and deliberately resolved, to sanction none but such as were established and confirmed by him.”
“This book,” says he, “the Gentiles (i. e. Christians) have added to their Bible.”
“Their wise men,” says Buxtorf, “pronounced this book to be Apocryphal.”
The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by THE son of Sikacii, is expressly numbered among Apocryphal books, in the Talmud. “In the book of the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to read.”
Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, Those things which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus are nothing to the purpose, because that is an Apocryphal book.” Another of their writers says, “The book of the son of Sirach is added to our twenty-four sacred books, by the Romans.” This book also, they call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be read. With what face then can the Romanists pretend, that this book was added to the Canon, not long before the time of Josephus?
Baruch, says one of their learned men, “is received by Christians” (i. e.. Romanists.) “but not by us.”
Of ToBiT, it is said in Zemach David “Know then that this book of Tobias is one of those which Christians join with the Hagiographa.” A little afterwards, it is said, “Know then that Tobit which is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into Hebrew, by Sebastian Munster.” The same writer aflfirms of the history of Susannah, “That it is received by Christians, but not by us.”
The Jewsjin the time of Jerome, entertained no other opinion of these books, than those who came after them; for in his Preface to Daniel he informs us, “That he had- heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding the history of Susannah, who said, ’ it was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.”*
* See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger,
The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the ot Ik r hooks, which we call Apocryphal, as is manifest from all the copies of the Hehrew Bihie, extant; for, undoubtedly, if they l)clieved that an’ of these books were Car.onical, they would give them a place in their sacred volume. But will any ask, what is the opinion of the Jews to us? I answer, much, on this point. The oracles of God were C’lmmited to them; and they preserved them with ar religious care, until the advent of Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding to the Sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. Since their nation has been in dispersion, copies of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, have been scattered all over the world, so that it was impossible to produce a universal alieration in the Canon. — But it is needless to argue this point, for it is agreed by all, that these books never were received by the Jewish nation.
3. The third argument against the Canonical authority of these books, is derived from the totl silence respecting them, in the New Testament. Thev are never quoted by Christ and his apostles. This fact, however,is disputed by theRomanists,and they even attempt to e’-taiiiish their right ti< a pi ace in the Canon, from the citations, which they pretend have been made from tliesc books by the apostles. They refer to Rom. xi. and Heb. xi where they allea:e, that P..ul has ci’ed passages from the B<H)k of Wisdom. For who hath known the mind of E 2 the Lord orwh’o hath been his counsellor? — For before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God. But both these passages are taken directly from the Canonical books of the Old Testament. The first is nearly in the words of Isaiah; and the last from the book of Genesis; their other examples are as wide of the mark as these, and need not be set down.
And it has already been shown that these books were included in the volume quoted, and referred to, by Christ and his apostles, under the title of, THE Scriptures, and are entirely omitted by Josephus in his account of the Sacred books. It would seem therefore, that in the time of Christ, and for some time afterwards, they were utterly unknown, or wholly disregarded.