Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined and The Apocrypha

“The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles.”
— Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

Reasons why the Apocrypha (deuterocanonical books) is not regarded as inspired Scripture:

1. The Roman Catholic Church gave its definitive dogmatic definition of the canon, including the deuterocanonical books, at the Council of Trent (1546). Earlier Western councils (Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397/419) and Florence (1442) had already listed them, but Trent responded to Reformation challenges with binding authority. This coincided with doctrines such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the treasury of merit, for which texts like 2 Maccabees provided support.
2. While some of these books (portions of Sirach, Tobit, and likely 1 Maccabees) had Hebrew or Aramaic originals, most survive primarily in Greek. They lack the consistent Hebrew character of the protocanonical Old Testament writings produced by the inspired historians, poets, and prophets.
3. None of the writers explicitly claims prophetic inspiration in the manner of the canonical Old Testament authors.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scripture by the mainstream Jewish community, and therefore were never sanctioned as such by our Lord, who operated within that Jewish framework.
5. Reception in the early Church was mixed. While some Fathers and late-fourth-century Western councils accepted them, others preferred the narrower Hebrew canon. They were frequently treated as edifying for reading rather than fully canonical for doctrine during the first centuries.
6. They contain historical difficulties and internal tensions. For example, 1 and 2 Maccabees present differing details and emphases concerning the death of Antiochus Epiphanes that require careful explanation.
7. The Apocrypha contains teachings at variance with the clearer doctrine of the protocanonical Scriptures, most notably prayers and offerings for the dead:

“And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

8. The Apocrypha contains passages that many find offensive or unbecoming of divine authorship:

“Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.” (Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 25:19)
“From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.” (Sirach 25:24)
“It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined son, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.” (Sirach 22:3)

9. Certain narratives include elements such as deception, suicide, or practices that critics regard as morally problematic or folkloric (including the use of fish organs to drive away demons in Tobit).
10. The books themselves refer to the absence of prophets during the period in which they were written:

“And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them.” (1 Maccabees 4:46)
“And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day that there was no prophet seen in Israel.” (1 Maccabees 9:27)
“And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet.” (1 Maccabees 14:41)

11. Josephus, reflecting Jewish thought near the time of Jesus, rejected equal status for later writings:

“From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets… 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…” (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1.8)

12. The Dead Sea Scrolls community preserved some related literature (including fragments of Tobit and Sirach), yet there is no clear evidence that the Manual of Discipline (Community Rule) formally treated the later deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture on the same level as the Hebrew canon.
13. Claims of a formal “Council of Jamnia” (c. 90 AD) that definitively closed the Jewish canon and rejected the Apocrypha are widely regarded by modern scholars as overstated. Rabbinic discussions occurred at Yavneh, but they largely confirmed existing opinion rather than issuing a new authoritative decree. As F. F. Bruce noted, it was “the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.”
14. Although occasionally quoted or alluded to in early Christian writings, the books were not universally accepted as fully canonical. Melito of Sardis (c. 170) and certain statements by Origen preferred the Hebrew books; the Muratorian Fragment and various early catalogues reflect variation rather than uniform acceptance.
15. Jerome vigorously preferred the Hebrew canon and described the extra books as “Apocrypha.” He viewed them as useful for edification but not for establishing doctrine. He translated some reluctantly. Although the Vulgate tradition included them and they became standard in medieval Catholic Bibles, Jerome’s own scholarly judgment aligned with the narrower canon. Many later medieval scholars also distinguished their authority.
16. The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to distinguish those books received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired from those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after dispute among certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366–384) authorized Jerome’s work on the Latin Vulgate. Later councils affirmed the broader canon and the Latin text’s use. Jerome was among the first to apply the term “Apocrypha” (of doubtful authenticity) to the extra books in a restrictive sense.
18. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386) instructed: “Read the divine Scriptures—namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated.”
19. The extra books formed part of the developing Septuagint tradition used by Greek-speaking Jews and then by the early Church. Their exact status and the contents of manuscripts varied; they were not listed in all early catalogues of inspired books and appear more consistently in Christian lists from the fourth century onward.
20. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 350) preferred a narrower list (Prologue to the Psalms).
21. Epiphanius (c. 360) distinguished certain books: referring to Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, he said, “These indeed are useful books and profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”

Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?

The principal Catholic appeal to 2 Maccabees 12 for prayers for the dead is understandable, yet it places heavy weight on a single disputed text. Catholic and Orthodox Bibles contain seven additional books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees) plus the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel.

Their strongest historical support is inclusion in many Septuagint manuscripts, the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and the early Church. Yet physical inclusion alongside Scripture does not equal inspiration—modern Bibles also contain uninspired maps, notes, and helps. The Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew canon.

There are hundreds of Old Testament quotations and allusions in the New Testament. None treat the deuterocanonical books as authoritative Scripture with the formula “it is written.” Possible echoes exist, but these fall short of clear scriptural citation. Some protocanonical books are also rarely quoted; however, they belonged to the established Jewish collections (Law, Prophets, Writings) that were cited as Scripture.

Josephus’s 22-book count corresponds to the substance of the later Jewish 24-book or Protestant 39-book Old Testament and explicitly distinguishes post-Artaxerxes writings as lacking equal authority. This eliminates most of the Apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.

The author of 2 Maccabees himself describes the work as a human abridgment:

“…we have attempted to abridge in one book… we have taken in hand no easy task, yea, rather a business full of watching and sweat… Studying to be brief… If I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.” (2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-39)

This contrasts with New Testament claims of Spirit-inspired speech (Matthew 10:19-20; 1 Corinthians 2:12-13).

Catholic arguments and responses

• Early Christians quoted the Apocrypha → Early Christians also quoted other non-canonical Jewish and pagan works. Quotation alone does not establish canonicity.
• They appear in the Septuagint → The Jews of Palestine, whose scriptural framework Jesus affirmed, did not accept them as canonical. Septuagint contents varied.
• Councils of Hippo and Carthage listed them → These were important local Western councils. The New Testament canon rested on strong early evidence of apostolic origin. The deuterocanonicals remained more disputed, especially in the East and among scholars such as Jerome. It is not accurate to claim the Catholic Church uniquely “gave the world the Bible.”

Conclusion

The deuterocanonical books have historical and devotional value and illuminate the intertestamental period. They were read in many churches. Yet they lack the marks of full inspiration that characterize the Hebrew canon: consistent Jewish recognition, clear prophetic character, authoritative New Testament endorsement as Scripture, and internal claims consistent with divine authorship. For these reasons they do not belong in the canon of Scripture.

(Source. However, significant changes were made for fixes.)

And:

 

The Apocrypha (απόκρυφα means “hidden”) is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired.  These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors.  But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church.  If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?  The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.

Problems in the Apocrypha

When we look into the Apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems.  For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils. 

Condones the use of magic

Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”

Is it true that the smoke from a fish’s heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits?  Of course not.  Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:

• Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
• Tobit 12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins.  The blood of Christ is what cleanses us – not money or food given to poor people.  “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,” (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:

2 Maccabbees 12:43, “And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.”

Can anyone truly accept that money isn’t offering for the sins of dead people?  Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Historical Errors

Wrong historical facts:

• Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
• Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years.  “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Conclusion

Obviously, the Apocrypha has serious problems.  From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts – it is full of false and unbiblical teachings.  It isn’t inspired by God.  Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired.  This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man’s false tradition rather than God’s absolute truth.

Source