Bible Question:
Hi, Tim, Kalos, Doc, EdB, the thread I prepared this study for has been restricted. I don’t know why, so I’m placing it here so it won’t go to waste. My question comes at the end. I thank Kalos for his excellent link to “The OT Testament Apocrypha Controversy”, by Don Closson. Tim You make 4 strong arguments (id #143427) against including the Apocryphal books in the “Inspired” OT canon. 1-2) I don’t think a “lack of agreement” among those few early LXX manuscripts impugns their inspired status any more than it does our current “Protestant” canon which, after all, derives from myriad extant and often dissimilar manuscripts. 3) Yes, Paul’s citations of these books can’t automatically make Scripture of them. By the same token, however, Paul’s non-citation of others can’t automatically render those “mere works of man”. In other words, NT Apostolic quotation doesn’t equal inspiration, or lack thereof. 4) That the early church fathers disagreed on canonicity may not be so decisive since Jerome himself ultimately acceded to the Catholic Church’s authority in the matter and even defended them as inspired (“Against Rufinas” 11:33; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm). How do we judge the inspired status of these books? What settles the question for me is that Jesus Himself made reference to the Apocrypha in a typological (i.e. pointing to Himself) way. One reference in particular should suffice. Jesus and His Apostles observed Hanukkah (John 10:22-36), which is recorded as divinely established only in 1 and 2 Maccabees and never mentioned in any other OT book. On the day of the Feast, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken-- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'”? (Joh 10:34-36 ESV). Jesus while standing near the Temple during the Feast of Hanukkah speaks of his being “consecrated” (“separated from a common to a sacred use” Websters), just as Judas Maccabeus “consecrated” the Temple 1 Macc 4:36-59 and 2 Macc 10:1-8. Jesus made a deliberate and direct connection in the minds of his Jewish hearers with the Feast and the account of it in the “apocryphal” Maccabees 1-2 as a foreshadowing or “type” of His own consecration by the Father. Just as Jesus taught His disciples to read the OT typologically (John 5:39) in the Manna (Joh 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4); the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Num 21:4-9), and in Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Gen 28:12), here He clearly accords the same status of divine inspiration of these other accounts to this Self-reference in the Books of Maccabees. Christ does not distinguish these 2 “apocryphal” books from any other inspired book of the OT nor, apparently, did His Apostles. These books appear to be canon-worthy. Some observations from my studies. 1) Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants as I’m increasingly finding the Catholic Church, though freaky at times, to be an immense, supernatural, exegetical resource. We all could open our tidy little minds a bit in this regard. 2) Very, very few, both Catholic and Protestant, seem to know any Church history at all. For example, did you know we nearly lost James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation to Martin Luther’s redaction of the NT? I’ve heard, but haven’t found the primary source, that only an “accident of history” saved these books, which begs my closing question: How were these NT books saved from the Apocalypse of Apocrypha? Colin |
Bible Answer: Dear Colin, Those are very good points, each and everyone. They do demonstrate conclusively -- at least in my mind -- that Jesus and the apostles knew of the books of the Maccabees and believed in their historicity. What is still needed is a demonstration of the divine inspiration behind these books. That Christ or the apostles were aware of a book, is not the same as it being declare of divine origin. Remember that these books do not necessarily stand in some of sort of unified way. To elevate them to the same level as the other scriptures will require the same assurances that the other scriptures enjoy. I have not forgotten my church history. The hard questions in any kind of reformation are What should be kept? What should be left behind? How do I know the difference? If I had been in those positions to have tried to deal with those issues, I am sure I would have done very poorly. However, God has an Eternal Purpose, and He His quite careful to protect His Truth for later generations. You're right, there is a deep seated suspicion of anything Roman Catholic. Church History will explain that very clearly. If it does not, then it isn't a balanced history being presented. On one hand you blame the knowledge of church history for a suspicious attitude toward Roman Catholicism, on the other you fault the lack of knowledge of church history. I'm not sure what you are for or against in that respect, so I will leave that for you to explain more clearly one day. What did you discover regarding the Apocrypha from the writings of the very early church fathers Melito (170 AD) and Athanasius (347 AD)? I had hoped that you had considered them in your evaluation, since they were so close to the period where the distinction began. In Him, Doc |