DID JESUS USE THE APOCRYPHA?

Although much of it was available, Jesus did not quote from the Apocrypha. Jesus would have used the Septuagint, which contained some of the Old Testament apocryphal books. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. During Jesus’ time, it was accessible and available to Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean.

 

The word apocrypha literally means “hidden away.” In an esteemed sense, the apocryphal  writings were hidden or withdrawn from common use because they were regarded as containing mysterious or esoteric lore, too profound to be communicated to any except the initiated. But in another sense, these writings are hidden for good reason. They are deemed theologically suspicious and even heretical by many.

 

As the titles suggest, many of the apocryphal books take the Old Testament as their starting point. For instance, since Esther never explicitly mentions the God of Israel, additions to Esther included phrases or verses that describe God’s sovereign action and oversight of the story. Baruch was Jeremiah’s beloved secretary (Jeremiah 36:26). With only 150 psalms in the Hebrew Scriptures, Psalm 151 is added. Manasseh was a wicked king over the southern kingdom (2 Kings 21:1-9), who repented after being imprisoned in Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:10-13). His prayer of repentance, according to 2 Chronicles 33:18-19, can be found in the lost Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. The Prayer of Manasseh claims to be that ancient prayer. And The Prayer of Azariah (Daniel’s friend, also known as Abednego; Daniel 1:6), Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon expound on the Daniel narrative in significant ways.

 

The Apocrypha is a collection of books that are not a part of the Protestant Old Testament. However, New Testament scholar, Dr David Briones believes “we can read the Apocrypha discerningly yet constructively, critically yet charitably. Doing so will lead one to see the many ways it actually enhances our understanding of the divinely inspired Scriptures.”

 

Consistent with Dr Briones’ charitable overview, we must proceed with caution as we interact with apocryphal writings. Here are some facts which cannot be ignored:

 

1. The Apocrypha does not carry a sense of prophetic authority, reflected in words like, “…thus saith the Lord…”, etc.

 

2. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the Apocrypha, although having full access to the Septuagint.

3. When affirming or canonizing the Old Testament, the Apocrypha was never even considered.

 

4. Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C. – A.D. 40), frequently quoted the Hebrew Old Testament as inspired, but never from the Apocrypha.

 

5. Jewish historian, Josephus, (A.D. 30-100), never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture.

 

6. Many Church Fathers (A.D. 100-300), spoke against the Apocrypha as Scripture.

 

7. Although accepting some books, Martin Luther rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

 

8. In response to Martin Luther and the Reformation, Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent (1546), gave canonical status to most of the Apocryphal books.

 

 

Although Protestant Christians have generally rejected the Apocrypha as authoritative for faith and practice, the writings have been accepted as useful historical information. The Apocrypha sheds light on two monumental events between the Old and New Testament. Firstly, the Hellenization crisis (attempt to coalesce the Greek and Jewish ways of life) and the Maccabean revolt (Jewish response to state cruelty). These events shaped the consciousness of every Jewish person living in the first century AD and are therefore vital for the study of the New Testament.

 

Although unorthodox in many ways, the Apocrypha is orthodox, historically informative and spiritually edifying in other ways. However, I do not believe Apocryphal writings are inspired. For this reason, it should not be used for personal devotions and church liturgy. I would continue to expose theological students to the material, but I would not be using the Apocrypha for foundational preaching texts.

 

Interestingly, some of the theological differences that are evident between Protestants and Roman Catholics find their genesis in some apocryphal texts. One such doctrine is purgatory – the idea that one can pray on behalf of the dead. Another is the view that alms-giving could merit forgiveness of sins. Both views conflict with clear apostolic teaching in the New Testament.

 

However, I would not be so extreme as to declare the Apocrypha as Satanic literature. For instance, the Prayer of Azariah offers the same sacrifices mentioned by David in Psalm 51 (“… the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise…”. Azariah like David in Psalm 51, came to realize that the hand that breaks his bones will be the same hand that makes them rejoice (Prayer of Azariah 19-20).

 

CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

In his book, Lost Christianities, Professor Bart Erhman, listed forty-four other books that contended for inclusion into the New Testament. His volume leaves us with many questions, among them is the question, what criteria were used to determine the inclusion of the twenty-seven books we call the New Testament?

The process of collecting the writings for inclusion into the New Testament was called canonization. The term canon implies that the books identified were authoritative for faith and life. The recognition of the canon of the New Testament is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early church.

I hasten to add that canonization did not make the books credible. Rather, the books were canonized because they were credible. After demonstrating credibility for more than 300 years, canonizers affirmed their inclusion into a single volume, called the New Testament. Even before Church Councils ratified the final list for inclusion late in the fourth century, the process of ratification began years earlier. Here were the criteria used to determine the inclusion of the twenty-seven books into the New Testament.    

APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP

Apostles were men sent or commissioned by Jesus himself. These men would have been credible eyewitnesses, authorized to write what they knew. In one of his letters, John said, “…which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched, this we proclaim…” (1 John 1:1). Although he did not know Jesus as the disciples did, Paul was commissioned as an apostle. Based on his pre-conversion behavior, Paul considered himself to be “the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle…” (1 Corinthians 15:9). Other writers like Luke and Mark were not commissioned apostles, but were closely associated with apostles and were heavily involved in the ministries of some of the apostles.

DATE OF THE WRITINGS

Because of the need for apostolic authorship, each book chosen had to be written within the first century. All the apostles died within the first century. With the exception of John, who was exiled, the other apostles were all martyred for their beliefs. Establishing early dates aided in eliminating the writings listed in Professor Erhman’s Lost Christianities.

CONTENT OF WRITINGS

The writings had to be consistent with what the apostles’ actually taught. In one of his letters, Paul said, “… when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God …” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Of Paul’s writings, Peter said, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Peter would agree that Paul’s reference to the Hebrew Scriptures as “… God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”, should also apply to the writings of the New Testament. There was a life transforming power inherent in the writings. Long before the New Testament was canonized, believers displayed a distinct regard for the apostolic writings, compared to religious writings from other sources.

RECOGNITION BY CHURCHES

The more than 300 years that spanned the writing of the books from the canonization, gave ample time for churches to demonstrate their acceptance. Frequent quotations or citations from the books can be verified. In referring to the frequent citations of the New Testament decades before canonicity, Professor Bruce Metzer said: “Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”

Under the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284-305), when Christians were persecuted for their sacred writings, many preserved the apostolic writings and surrendered other writings to the authorities for destruction. I vaguely recall reading that Christians stood when apostolic letters were read. This mark of reverence was not extended to other letters. Some historians have deduced that if the churches at Ephesus, Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Carthage, accepted a book as authoritative, then chances were strong that serious consideration was given for inclusion.

I would agree that not all the writings that the apostles wrote became Scripture. For example, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which are lost and thus not in the canon (“… I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with…” [1 Corinthians 5:9] and “… even if I caused you sorrow by my letter… I see that my letter hurt you…” [2 Corinthians 7:8]). In addition, not everything that happened with Jesus was recorded. In his Gospel, John said, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book…” (John 20:30).

However, these omissions do not undermine the credibility of the New Testament. The writers wrote with purpose and their goal was sufficiently achieved with what was written. John’s summary is fitting, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah…” (John 20:31).

In my next blog, I will attempt to discuss the omission of the Apocryphal books from the canon.

 

WHY A NEW TESTAMENT?

 

Jesus never wrote anything that was included in the New Testament. Furthermore, He said to his disciples that the Holy Spirit “…will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). And, following the more than 3,000 conversions on the Day of Pentecost, the new believers “… devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching…”, and that was without the New Testament as we know it today.

The words and message of Jesus were first circulated in oral form. His words were treasured and quoted, taking their place beside the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The words of Jesus were held as of equal or with superior authority to the Old Testament. Here Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) quotes Jesus and an Old Testament text, and referred to both as Scripture – “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain’ (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, ‘The worker deserves his wages’” (Luke 10:7).

Luke, not a disciple of Jesus, depended heavily on the oral tradition in his writings about Jesus. In acknowledging that others were involved in similar exercises, he wrote, “… many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses…” (Luke 1:1). His eyewitness sources ensured the accuracy of his writings and also the veracity.

However, Luke’s writings were not intended for publication. He wrote to Theophilus, “… so that [he] would know the certainty of the things [he] was taught” (Luke 1:4). As Paul wrote to Christians, he too acknowledged that he benefited from oral sources – “… for what I received I passed on to you as of first importance…” (1Corinthians 15:3). The verbs Paul used were technical terms for receiving and transmitting tradition.

A pattern was emerging. Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Bible. The words of Jesus were as authoritative as the words of the Hebrew Bible. However, Jesus never wrote down his teachings. So his message was communicated orally, first by eyewitnesses. Within the lifetime of these eyewitnesses, the words of Jesus began to be documented. John, one of Jesus’ disciples, contended that not everything was written – “Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

But for who were John and others writing? Each writer had a different purpose and audience in mind. Some writers were not even aware of other writings. As each person wrote, he had more than his immediate audience in mind. Actually, many in his immediate audience were illiterate. The literacy rate, at that time, in that part of the world, was less than 10%

Historians assume that as each Gospel was completed, it was used for public reading, first in the place of its composition, then copied and circulated to other churches. The collection of Paul’s letters must have begun early, even in his own lifetime. Paul himself said to the Colossians: “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:16).

I hasten to add that some of the writers knew what they were writing was divinely inspired. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote: “And we also thank God continually because when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God…” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Peter would concur with Paul. He wrote that “Paul wrote with the wisdom that God gave him… some of his letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures…” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Before the end of the first century, all the writings of the New Testament were complete. For instance, Clement of Rome wrote to Christians in Corinth (96 AD/CE). In that letter, he quoted from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and alluded to at least two other letters of Paul. For hundreds of years before the New Testament was recognized (canonized), writers quoted extensively from the writings of the apostles and associates.

However, the need to recognize more authoritative letters had become a growing concern. The emergence of heretical sects like Gnosticism, having their own sacred books, made it imperative for the church to establish boundaries for sacred writings.

In addition, Emperor Diocletian (284-305) wanted to establish Roman virtues in the Empire. He embarked on a program to burn sacred writings. Diocletian demanded that all Christian churches be destroyed and that the sacred scriptures be burned.

Like Diocletian, Emperor Constantine (306-337) sought to unite the Empire. His conversion to Christianity caused him to pursue a path that was totally different from Diocletian. His reign marked a significant transaction for the church. With the Edit of Milan (313), Christian hostility ceased and opportunities for growth was seen. At the Empire’s expense, Constantine ordered the repairs and rebuilding of churches that were damaged by previous Emperors.

Among a number of other favorable reforms, Constantine requested the production of the Christian Scriptures for access in Constantinople, the new Empire capital. That request provided the foundation upon which Church Councils affirmed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. In my next blog, I will provide the criteria that was used to determine the inclusion of the twenty-seven books in our New Testament.