Apocrypha Article 2
The Apocrypha should not be added into the canon of the Holy Scriptures
because they were not written by prophets.
The
Apocryphal books were not Written by the Prophets.
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
Syllogism:
These apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, therefore they
are not canonical. Entire
syllogism: All canonical books of the OT were written by prophets: none
of the apocryphal books were written by any prophets: therefore they are
not canonical.
The
Major premise rests on Scripture: Peter says the OT is the
“prophetic word.” (2 Peter 1:19); Paul calls it the
“scriptures of the prophets” (Romans 16:26); Zacharias the
priest says “As he spake by the mouths of his holy prophets, which
have been since the world began.” (Luke 1:70); “They have Moses
and the Prophets” as Abraham said (Luke 18:39); Luke wrote,
“Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them
in all the Scripture the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:24;
cf. Rom. 1:2); Heb. 1:1, “God spake in divers manners by the
prophets.”; the church is built upon the “apostles and
prophets” (Eph. 2:20); “All things must be fulfilled
which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms, concerning me:” and it follows immediately,
“And he opened their understanding, that they might understand the
Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45); Paul asks Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?”
– that is the Scriptures. (Acts 26:27); When Paul dealt with the
Jews at Rome he tried to convince them “out of the law of Moses
and the prophets.” (Acts 28:23).
From these we see that the major assertion is true, that the
whole OT was given to us by God’s prophets.
There is no part of the OT which was not given by the
prophets.
The
entire OT canonical Scriptures are deemed in the following way: 1)
the prophets; 2) Moses and the prophets; 3) Moses, the prophets, and
the psalms.
Augustine
so shows this in his writings against Cresconius the grammarian:
“Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so
salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and
apostles should belong to it.” (Lib. 2. cap. 31); also “Let them
shew us their church, not in the rumors of the Africans, but in the
injunction of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the
songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of
the sacred books.” (De Unit. Eccles. C. 16.)
That
the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets are clear and
certain. All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet.
Between Malachi and John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet
arose, but the writers of the apocryphal books lived after Malachi.
Even the RCC does not deny this.
They
were written in another language (Greek – more on this later)
rather than the prophetic tongue of Hebrew. The numerous quotations
of the fathers affirm this, the RCC does not deny this.
Most
importantly, if these books had been written by the prophets, Christ
would have quoted them and used them as witness to himself, as he
did with the others. Christ
nor his apostles quoted the apocrypha.
It is a useless case to strain the idea that they may have
alluded to it. In the
witness of Christ, or the apostles for Christ, they never quoted the
apocryphal books (more on this later).
As Augustine states of the book of Macabees, “The Jews do
not esteem this scripture as the Law and prophets, to which the Lord
bears testimony as his witness.” (Contra Gaudent. Epist. Lib. II
cap. 23.) Christ bears
no testimony of these, thus they are not credible witness of Him.
They would be if they were prophetic.
These
apocryphal books were not received by the church of the Israelites;
therefore they are non canonical.
Syllogism would be as such: The ancient church of the Hebrews
received and approved all the books of the OT; The church did not
receive these books; therefore they are not canonical.
Major
proposition is easy to show: If the church had removed such a large
portion of the “Scriptures”, they would have been thoroughly
rebuked by Christ for doing so; or even by the apostles – which
they were not. The Jews
were blamed for putting wrong senses on the Scriptures (see
Christ’s repeated arguments with the Pharisees, Sadducees and
Scribes), they would have received a greater and more stern
condemning word for removing the “scriptures” altogether; which
was never the case. Christ
would be negligent not to rebuke and reprove them of this, being the
eternal Word, which he never did.
Josephus
attests to the care and strictness of the Jews who cared for the OT
canon, without the inclusion of the apocrypha – see Eusebius, Lib.
III. Cap. 10.2.) Augustine
and all the fathers accept the truth of this.
Also, if the Jews did err in this, not accepting the
apocryphal books and excluding them from the canon, then the church
erred, and the RCC would never accept that, since there is only one
true church. For everyone understands and knows that these books were
never included in the OT canon, no matter how familiar they may have
been to anyone. Bellarmine
tries to escape this problem by saying that the apostles warrant and
approved the apocrypha. Where
is this to be found? Where
did they ever say this or write this?
Nowhere.
These
books are not written by the prophets, nor received by the Israelite
church, and therefore are not a canonical, much less inspired.
|
|
Back to the
Apologetics Page
Back to the
Apocrypha Page
The Apocrypha, Article 1
The Apocrypha, Article 2
The Apocrypha, Article 3
The Apocrypha, Article 4
The Apocrypha, Article 5 |
