An Exchange on the Apocrypha
If you have not read the article, "The Truth about the Apocrypha," please do so before proceeding to read the subsequent exchange. The following exchange focuses mainly on one disputant, a restoration scholar who was very capable of representing the Apocryphal books, a man whom I shall in this exchange refer to as "Kelvin" (I am omitting names so that all focus will be on the material and not on who wrote it). I have also omitted about half of the exchange as it was mainly extraneous and repetitive. My paramount objective in the debate was to show that the Apocrypha (the fourteen or fifteen books some view as deserving a place along side the sixty-six books of the Bible) has no place in the Bible and that to place it in our Bibles is misleading, to say the least. Kelvin defended the Apocrypha in our Bibles and placed great importance to these books. He did, however, fail to confirm that he believed that they were "inspired" (he always placed quotations around inspired and would not define what he meant by "inspired"). Kelvin conducted himself well in the exchange and focused on the issue. The hosting Internet list consisted of about 1, 000 people, a number of whom were preachers for various churches, including "Churches of Christ."
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
Kelvin has sent six emails privately to me and has posted two. Some
contain questions posed to me; some make statements.
I shall attempt to briefly respond.
Keep in mind that this whole exchange was occasioned by my answer to the
question submitted to Bible Questions regarding the "missing books
of the Bible." I affirmed in my answer and continue to point out that the
Apocrypha (14 or 15 books, this is the reference unless otherwise indicated) was
never legitimately part of the sacred canon. I also objected to the
Apocrypha being included along with the sixty-six canonical books in our Bibles.
I did, though, concede a limited utility of a historistic nature associated with
some of the apocryphal books. I continue to not know fully what sparked
all the response to my original answer regarding the so called missing books of
the Bible. It is clear that some, including Kelvin, believe I am not
placing enough importance on the Apocrypha and that I should not oppose its
inclusion in our Bibles. Yes, Kelvin has said that he does not view the
Apocrypha as "inspired" (Kelvin’s quotes). I think there is a bigger issue
in this exchange than the one that has surfaced. I say this because it
seems to be that Kelvin is over-reacting otherwise.
Kelvin wrote:
...regards the Septuagint. You still lay too much weight to the Roman
Catholics here. They did not even exist when the Septuagint was formed.
Don comments:
Kelvin has made some good historistic points relative to the Apocrypha, its
origin and evolution. However, I believe Kelvin has exaggerated much and
has emphasized some matters to the de-emphasizing and exclusion of other
important particulars. I shall now take the time to inject some matters
for our consideration.
I am aware that the Apocrypha was anterior to Roman Catholicism. As I
myself originally stated, these particular "secret" or "outlawed" books date
between 200 B. C. and 100 A. D. I have admitted that some early on had
much fascination regarding these books, even to the point of viewing them as
given by God and authoritative on an equal level to Genesis, etc. I have
also stated that it appears than many of the quotations resident in the New
Testament were taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). Again, I think
Kelvin makes too much to do about this and blows it out of proportion.
Scholarship is divided as to what the original LXX translation included.
Our earlier full manuscript of the LXX dates back to the fourth century A. D.
The original LXX was translated in about 250 B. C. While our fourth
century manuscript does contain the Apocrypha, no one knows for sure when the
Apocrypha was included. Some scholars believe that the Apocrypha was added
to versions of the LXX after the time of Jesus and the apostles. It is
important to realize that the Targums and Peshitta that preceded the LXX
did not have the Apocrypha. It is true that the Italia, Coptic, Ethiopic,
and Syriac "Bibles" did have the Apocrypha, but these works were "descendants"
of the LXX and not the Hebrew text as such.
It is also of importance to note that the Codex Vaticanus (fourth century),
Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century)
retained and excluded different apocryphal books. In addition, many
scholars believe that the Jewish Aquila supplanted the LXX early in the second
century and the Aquila work does not have the Apocrypha.
Regarding Kelvin’s arguments that Jesus and the apostles acknowledged the
Apocrypha; first, because these books were in the Greek translation from
which they quoted and, second, because they actually on occasion quoted these
works, again, I think Kelvin has overstated his cause.
It does appear to me that Jesus and the apostles quoted the LXX, especially when
addressing Greek speaking people. However, we are not even sure if the
Apocrypha was included in any versions of the LXX that they may have used
(remember we are about three hundred years removed from the first LXX
work). Kelvin would offer as proof the inclusion of
the Apocrypha in their versions of the LXX based on
his understanding that they quoted these works. However, such cannot be
conclusively proved. Some scholars offer verbal coincidences as the answer
rather than deliberate quotations of the Apocrypha.
Besides, the apocryphal books were not even in existence when the LXX was
originally made; hence, we know the original LXX did not contain the Apocrypha
in totality. Kelvin has failed to address or mention these details (at
least, I do not recall reading these admissions).
Here are some things that we do know: The Apocrypha was not part or
included in the Jewish Masoretic Text. The 152, 000 additional words
comprising the Apocrypha were later added by man, uninspired man, I might add.
The esteemed F. F. Bruce states that he believes the LXX was itself made to try
to placate Greek speaking people and offer something for the Jew and Gentile
alike. Be that as it may, this was the only major Greek translation of the
Hebrew for the people in the first century. Kelvin has bolstered his
claim for the inclusion of the Apocrypha in our Bibles by mentioning such
matters as the original King James Translation included the Apocrypha.
Again, Bobby has mentioned only partial facts. Consider this: The King
James edition made just eight years subsequent omitted the
Apocrypha.
Some believe that those who oppose the Apocrypha being placed along side our
canonical sixty-six books of the Bible are wrong in attributing such
promotion of the Apocrypha to Roman Catholicism. Indeed, there were
champions of the Apocrypha centuries before the inception of full fledge
Romanism, however, it was in the Council of Trent in 1546 that a number of the
fifteen apocryphal books were declared to be part of the sacred canon. I believe
the fact that the original King James contained the Apocrypha (some of it) shows
the influence of Catholicism in having the Apocrypha placed in Bibles.
I personally believe the LXX, at least the fourth century version, set a bad
precedent in including the Apocrypha. As Alfred Edersheim wrote, "The
Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon
was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of
the Hellenists on 'inspiration,' and the absence of that close watchfulness
exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and
ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible." (Alfred
Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiahapocrypha, meaning "hidden.")
As I recall, the first English translation to include the Apocrypha was the
Wycliffe Bible (1382 A. D.). Of the subsequent works that included the
Apocrypha, different things were done to indicate to the reader that by their
inclusion of the Apocrypha, they were not intending to suggest these books were
also a part of the canon (some have stated that these books are not part
of scripture but were included to be of history value). However, the
inclusion of these uninspired works along with inspired and canonical
books (the sixty-six) is very miss leading, to say the least.
Kelvin stated:
So if you are trying to minimize the weighty fact of the presence of the
Apocrypha in the LXX because it is a "weak" translation . . . then what are you
going to do with all those hundreds of quotes from it? And the influence of the
LXX goes far beyond mere quotes.
Don replies:
Again, Kelvin’s zeal I think has become too productive. I do use the
example of Jesus and the apostles quoting from the LXX translation to show that
one does not have to have a flawless translation in order to quote from it (the
LXX has many flaws, translation wise). However, we must remember that the
LXX was the Greek translation of its day and that most of the world of Jesus'
day was Greek speaking. We have far superior English translations today
from which to choose. Kelvin, though, presupposes the presence of the
Apocrypha in the LXX version from which the apostles quoted. Again, I
think much of Kelvin's claims as to direct quotation from the Apocrypha by the
apostles can be explained by verbal coincidences (see
next paragraph treatment).
Kelvin wrote:
If your Greek is as good as you claim then you are fully aware that the writer
of the Gospel of Luke consciously models his Greek after that of the Septuagint.
Don responds:
Again, Kelvin jumps to conclusions. Rather than say what Kelvin does about
Luke's vocabulary and Greek idiom or style, why not offer the explanation
that, yes, Luke appears to quote from the LXX but since the LXX sought to use
the in vogue Greek syntax and Luke was an educated writer, there would naturally
be similarities in syntax and style. Kelvin does not allow this influence.
Kelvin stated:
He does this to give the Gospel the "flavor" or "feel" of the "Bible."
Just as some old folk don't think they are actually hearing scripture unless it
"sounds" like the KJV . . . so our author molds his language to "sound" like the
LXX.
Don observes:
Why not admit the possibility of my explanation? Again, keep in mind that
we do not even know if the LXX of the first century
that Jesus and the apostles may have used contained the Apocrypha or how much of
it was contained (remember it appears that not all the apocryphal books were
even written at the time of Jesus' ministry). Furthermore, many scholars
do not even believe that Jesus and the apostles quoted the Apocrypha or if they
did, it was only in the sense that Paul quoted Epimenides in Titus 1: 12.
Please see post 2
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
I again thank Kelvin for his time and work in this exchange.
Kelvin wrote, quoting me:
You state:
"I, frankly, was unaware of how many works have included the Apocrypha. However,
I still refer mostly to highly recognized translations. These, for the
most part, have refused to include the Apocrypha."
Kelvin to Don: We are moving forward here a little. But what do you mean
by "I still refer mostly to highly recognized translations." What
does this mean, Don? Does this mean only the least recognized translations
include the Apocrypha?!! I don't think the facts about translations has
really sunk in yet for you. Is not the King James Version one of the "most
recognized translations"? Does it or does it not include the Apocrypha?
What about the Revised Version/American Standard Version? Was this one of the
"most recognized" translations? Did it include the Apocrypha? What
about the RSV?
Here are the facts once again (easily verifiable). EVERY, that is EVERY major
English translation in history has included the Apocrypha until the 20th
century. There was not one "official" translation that did not include
it.. From the time of John Wycliff to the publication of the New Revised
Standard Version in 1990ish this is the case. Only with the advent of the
New American Standard Version in the late 1960s, the New
International Version in the 1970s and the English Standard Version in
the late 1990s was there a major Bible translation that did not include the
Apocrypha.....
Don replies:
Once again Kelvin fails to include germane information and facts. There is
once more the presence of exaggeration. I have certainly included the King
James as a major English translation, but about eight years after the initial
translation work, the next edition did not have the Apocrypha. Why? For
about the last fifty years, we have witnessed some of the most accurate and
advanced Greek translation work ever. There are a number of reasons for
this. I think, though, it is vastly important that these highly recognized
translations have for the most part omitted the Apocrypha. I think that
they came to realize that even if they placed a disclaimer as to their inclusion
suggesting the canonicity of the Apocrypha, some
readers would simply conclude that the Apocrypha was also the Bible, after all,
it is placed along side the canonical sixty-six books.
Kelvin wrote:
Third, you claim that I am overzealous with Paul's use of the Apocrypha or
Josephus. How so?
Answer:
Kelvin, in the first place, I do not agree that Paul directly quoted from the
Apocrypha as often as you suggest. In the first place, the
Apocrypha in its totality was not even in place. You omit germane detail
and offer no needed qualification in your statements. Even if we accept
the statement that Paul quoted the Apocrypha and not just verbal coincidence, as
some scholars explain, what is the point? You surely do not believe Paul
used the Apocrypha as he did scripture and viewed the Apocrypha as being "the
commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. 14: 37). You have explained that the
Apocrypha is not to be viewed as an example of plenary inspiration, though, your
statement was a little vague to me (cp. I Cor. 2: 13). What, then, is the
point? I suggest if such is the case, Paul is just doing what he did in
Acts 17: 28 when he quoted Aratus or Cleanthes and as Paul did in Titus 1: 12
when he quoted Epimenides. Again, we do not know that the versions of the
LXX extant when Paul preached and wrote contained the Apocrypha. Your
argument is presumptive. This is what I mean when I kindly point
out your zeal.
Kelvin continues:
Fourth, you apparently do not believe what I said about reconstructing most of
the Apocrypha from the Church Fathers. I urge you to show that I am wrong.
Your statement does not constitute that I am wrong. The Apocrypha is
quoted thousands of times in the writings of the Church Fathers. Commentaries
were written on books in the Apocrypha just as they were on most other texts in
the "Bible."
Don answers:
I do not deny the existence of the Apocrypha, at least in part during the life
of Jesus. I just challenge how you believe faithful early Christians and
sound churches viewed and used the Apocrypha, this is our difference.
Please see post 3
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
Kelvin has a good mind and I do not want the fact that I have taken issue
with him in terms of the Apocrypha to give the impression that I do not believe
this. I do think, however, Kelvin has gone too far regarding the use of
the Apocrypha and its placement along side the canonical sixty-six books in our
Bibles.
Kelvin stated:
Questions and Observations for Don Martin: I suppose that the one who said we
need the Apocrypha was part of our shared Christian tradition would be me.
I believe this to be a historical fact, I also believe I can demonstrate that
fact.
The oldest complete Bible in the world is Codex Sinaiticus which dates to the
mid-300s. In the Old Testament it represents the Septuagint and includes
the Apocrypha. The contents are [in order]:
Gen . . . Judges, 1&2 Chronicles, 1&2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1&4 Maccabees,
Isaiah, Jer., Lamentations, the Twelve [Minor Prophets], Pss., Prov.,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach, Job [Ex., Leviticus and Deut are
missing and so is part of Joshua).
This is part of the "shared" inheritance that I speak of.
The earliest writers we have outside the NT quote from the Apocrypha, some even
use the formula "it is written" in doing so. For example Clement, a
contemporary of John, quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon three times and refers
to Judith and Esther.....
...The next earliest Christian writing outside the NT is likely the Didache.
Like Clement this document (dating to the early second century). The
writer(s) cite Sirach 4.31 (in chapter 4) and Tobit 4.15 in chapter 1. This last
case is interesting because it is the "reverse" golden rule ("And what you hate,
do not do to anyone").
Polycarp, who had apostolic connections, cites Tobit twice in his "Letter
to the Philippians." He cites Tobit 4.10 in chapter 10 ("when you are able
to do good, defer it not, for pitifulness delivers from death"). He
follows this up, in the same context with a citation of Tobit 12.9.
These examples are literally the tip of the iceberg. These folks, like
most folks, took the Bible they had and took for granted it was "scripture."
The bible these men had was the Septuagint and it shaped the church in powerful
ways.
Don responds:
Kelvin, I again respectfully say that I believe you exaggerate in terms of the
Apocrypha, hence, our differences. When I carefully examine your above
language, I draw back because I think you are placing too much emphasis on the
Apocrypha. I think you also are jumping to conclusions and precluding
tenable explanations.
The statement you made, "These folks, like most folks, took the Bible they
had and took for granted it was 'scripture,'" is typical of your statements that
caused me to take issue with you.
Please see post 4
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
Kelvin wrote:
...brother I hope you are not getting your information from The Da Vinci Code!
(I published to the list hosting the exchange on the Apocrypha an article from
Bible Truths titled, "Mary Magdalene and the Da Vinci Code" to illustrate
where some of this fascination with apocryphal writings, used on broad sense,
has taken some, DM).
Don answers:
I introduced Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code to point out how some are using
apocryphal books (the wider inclusion) to inculcate strange and foreign
religion. Take away the "Gospel of Mary" (this is considered an apocryphal
book in the wide sense), and Dan Brown's best seller would be a total failure.
Kelvin continues to correctly explain:
There is evidence here of some confusion on the term "Apocrypha." The word
apocrypha can be used in a general sense to mean legendary accounts, spurious
writings and the like. This is a non-technical use of the word. In this
sense there are many "apocrypha."
Then there is THE Apocrypha . . . or "Deuterocanonicals" they are called in some
technical literature. These are specific books. These books have
been accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Church, Greek
Orthodox Church and have been included in Bibles for millennia. These
books include Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], Baruch, Epistle/Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to
Daniel, 1 & 2 Maccabees. These works are in Roman Catholic, Greek and
Slavonic Bibles. The Apocrypha also includes 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh,
Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. These works are included in the Greek Bible and
the Slavonic (but not the RC canon of today . . . Manasseh is in the Vulgate
however). 2 Esdras adn 4 Maccabees are included in the Slavonic Bible and
in the Latin Vulgate. These books are THE Apocrypha.
There is another group of writings known as the Pseudepigrapha. Some
rather uncritically through the term "apocrypha"
around and include writings that properly belong to this group. James H.
Charlesworth has edited a two volume set of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that is
very helpful in many ways. For a serious student they are necessary to
understanding the world of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But these
works are different from the Apocrypha.
The Gospel of Mary (and there is more than one) is NOT part of the THE Apocrypha
(which focuses upon "Old Testament"). It is a sometimes included an among
NT pseudepigrapha or apocrypha. But this is a much looser body of
literature than THE Apocrypha. The Gospel of Mary was never
accepted by anyone in orthodox Christianity as anything other than a spurious
document.
To compare discussions about Wisdom and Sirach with the current resurrection of
Gnostic documents is to compare apples with rotten sardines. It is wrong
headed from the get go. The wise will discern here.
Don responds:
Kelvin, regarding the above, I am in basic agreement.
Please visit post 5
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
Kelvin wrote regarding the apocryphal book Tobit:
I have mentioned Tobit (along with Esther) several times in our exchanges on the
Apocrypha. This book, in my view, is a great story. In the short
study below I will give basic information about the book, themes, some great
texts and connections with the New Testament and early church. Of interest
to some will be Martin Luther's view of the book.
Don interjects:
Kelvin then presented a lengthy quote from Martin Luther, which I shall insert
in full below.
Don continues:
First, allow me to share a couple of thoughts. One reason the Apocrypha
is pronounced spurious in the context of inspiration is because of the nature
and teaching seen in a number of instances in these books. For instance,
consider Tobit 12: 9. Here is the verse:
"...for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who
regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life."
Why do I mention Tobit 12: 9? Some religious historians believe that Tobit
12: 9 is the source of authority for the Roman Catholic belief of salvation by
works. Next, consider 2 Maccabees 12: 43-46:
"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand
silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory
sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as
he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not
expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to
pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid
reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in
godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the
dead that they might be freed from this sin."
This passage is viewed as the authority for the Catholic teaching of purgatory.
Once dead, the living cannot alter the state of the dead through prayer or
atonement. You cannot "pray" or "pay" the dead out of their waiting place
(cp. Luke 16: 19-31). Back now to Kelvin’s quoted introduction to Tobit:
Tobit: of the Apocrypha
Introduction
Tobit is represented as a Jew of Galilee, living in the eighth century B.C.
Though his fellow Israelites follow idolatrous practices he maintained his
devotion to Yahweh and the temple in Jerusalem. He often went on
pilgrimages to observe the festivals of the Torah, taking three-tenths (30%) of
his income as his tithe (1.19)! His family, however, is taken into
captivity to Nineveh during the reign of Shalmaneser (2 Kings 18.9-11, the date
in the story would be around 722 B.C.). Tobit attempts to remain faithful
to God even while in exile. He eats only kosher food, takes care of his
neighbors, attends to prayer, fasting and burying the dead. This sets up
the real plot . . . which involves a son, a girl with a demon, an angel in
disguise . . . the elements of a good adventure!
Tobit is simply a wonderful and edifying story. The popularity of this
book among Jews and Christians can be seen by the number of editions/versions
that have survived from the ancient world. The book survives in three
Greek versions, two Latin versions, two Syriac editions, four Hebrew, Sahidic,
Armenian and is preserved in Ethiopic as well. The book has been
discovered in both Hebrew and Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.
Early Christians were fond of the story and found considerable worth in it.
Tobit, like the Epistle of Jeremiah, is quite old. As we have seen
with previous lessons the Dead Sea Scrolls have cast into doubt many previously
held notions about Tobit. Tobit was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic
(both exist in the DSS) and was probably written no later than 300 B.C.
(for questions of language and date see, Carey A. Moore, The Anchor Bible: Tobit,
pp. 33-39 and 40-42). One fragment of Tobit, 4Q199, found in the
caves of Qumran dates to 100 B.C. (see Moore, p. 38). The other texts of
Tobit found at Qumran are known as 4Q196; 4Q197; 4Q198 and 4Q200 {that is 197th
portion from the Cave Four at Qumran, etc).
Martin Luther on Tobit
It is often asserted that Luther had a very low view of the Apocrypha.
This is not entirely accurate. It is true that the great Reformer rejected
the Apocrypha as far as the canon goes or using the texts for establishing
doctrine. However, he did not reject the Apocrypha from Christian use,
indeed, he did just the opposite with these books. What did Luther think
of Tobit? What follows is from the "Preface to the Book of Tobit."
"What was said about the book of Judith may also be said about this book of
Tobit. If the events really happened, then it is fine and holy history.
But if they are all made up, then it is indeed a truly beautiful, wholesome, and
useful fiction or drama by a gifted poet. . . Tobit shows how things may go
badly with a pious peasant . . . there may be much suffering in married life,
yet God always graciously helps and finally crowns the outcome with joy . . .
Therefore this book is useful and good for us Christians to read. It is the work
of a fine Hebrew author who deals not with trivial but important issues, and
whose writing and concerns are extraordinarily Christian." (Luther's
Works, Vol. 35 pp. 345-347).
Theology In Tobit.
Though Tobit is, most likely, unhistorical it is a valuable historical source of
Jewish theology and faith in the fourth and third centuries before Jesus.
The air of simple goodness and heartfelt devotion which pervades the book
reflects the highest aspirations of God's People. The book touches on virtually
every aspect of family life (and does so with a sprinkling of grace).
Husband, wife, son, daughter and even the family dog (6.2; 11.4) is thrown in -
which I think is a delightful touch.
Tobit reveals a deep doctrine of God. Yahweh is presented as a
transcendent God who hears prayers, simultaneously and in vastly distant
geographical locations. God's power and majesty is seen through the
following appellations given to him, "King of heaven" (13. 7,11), the "Great
King" (13.15), the "Everlasting King" 13.6, 10). God is the "Holy One" (12. 12,
15), surrounded by glory (12.15). The Lord is merciful (3.2) and is like a
Father (13.4). He will restore his people from captivity (14.5). The book
even acknowledges that the Gentiles will one day come and worship the God of
Israel (13.11).
Tobit sees the life of faith grounded in what would later be called the "three
pillars of Judaism." These "pillars" are prayer, almsgiving and fasting
(12.8). Almsgiving (helping the poor) is to be practiced by both the
wealthy (1.16) and poorer (11.14). Prayer is a major aspect of Tobit.
Beautiful prayers are shared by Tobit (3. 1-6; 13), Sarah (3.11-15) and Tobias
(8.5-7). Also stress is laid upon the dignity of a human being by
giving a decent burial to the dead.
Tobit also says a great deal about demons and angels. The Hebrew Bible
does not say much about either of these beings but the are every where in the
New Testament. Tobit gives us insight into the "development" of ideas
regarding the doctrines on spiritual reality.
Tobit and the New Testament
There are numerous echoes of Tobit in the NT. Where there is not an
explicit echo Tobit sheds considerable light on numerous passages in the life of
Jesus and the Epistles. For example Raphael and Jesus both
assume that "prayer, fasting and almsgiving" will be part of the life of God's
People (Tobit 12.6-10; Matthew 6.1-18). Paul and Tobit stress giving
cheerfully and not grudgingly (Tobit 4.8; 2 Corinthians 8.12). Help is not
to be denied the poor (Tobit 4.7; Luke 6.30). Almsgiving is especially
encouraged by Tobit and Paul towards the righteous: in Tobit the faithful Jew,
in Paul toward the "household of faith" (Tobit 4.6; Galatians 6.10).
Tobit says that giving to the poor is the way one lays up a treasure, one that
will prove helpful in a day of adversity (Tobit 4.9). Giving is better than gold
(Tobit 12.8). Clearly Jesus approved this teaching. The Lord says,
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves
that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where
no thief comes near and no moth destroys. . ." (Luke 12.33-34).
In Tobit we encounter what is called the "Golden Rule" reversed. "And what you
hate, do not do to anyone" (Tobit 4.15; cf. Matthew 7.12 and Luke 6.31).
This version of the Golden Rule is quoted in the early Christian document, The
Didache 1.2.
Most readers of Tobit, when they encounter the sad tale of Sarah's life, cannot
help but think of a day in the life of Jesus. While teaching in the temple
some Sadducees came and challenged Jesus. They told of a woman who had
been married to seven husbands and all seven died (Matthew 22.23-28)! Yet
in Tobit we read how Sarah had been married seven times but the demon Asmodeus
had killed them all (Tobit 3.7-9). Where did the Sadducees get that question?
Surely Tobit! In the Gospel of John we read of the "strange" phenomenon of
Jesus making mud out of his saliva and putting it in the eyes of the blind man
(John 9.6); Raphael tells Tobias that if he smears the
gall of a fish on the eyes of Tobit his blindness will be healed (Tobit 6.9;
11.8).
The language of Raphael's "ascension" certainly has "echoes" in the NT. Raphael
declaration, "See, I am ascending to him who sent me" (Tobit 12.20) finds at
least an echo in such passages where Jesus says "him who sent me" (John 1.33;
4.34; 5.30, 38; 6.29, 38-39) and in Jesus announcement "I am going to him who
sent me" (John 7.33; 16.5). Continuing with this ascension language, Tobit
says after Raphael's departure, "they could see him no more" and they "kept
blessing God and singing his praises" (Tobit 12.21-22). This language may
have provide Luke with a "model" for expressing the events of Luke 24.51-53 and
Acts 1.9.
The reader of the New Testament may wonder what prompted Joseph of Arimathea to
take down the body of Jesus from the Cross and wrap it in a linen shroud, and
lay it in a tomb (Matt. 27.57-60; Mk. 15.43-46; Lk. 23.50-53). At least
part of the reason is the piety that is revealed in Tobit where we learn that it
was an act of selfless devotion to God to bury those who have been oppressed and
abused (Tobit 1.17-18; 2.3-5, 7-9).
Another "echo" that occurs in the NT would certainly be in the description of
Anna watching longingly for her lost son Tobias (Tobit 10.3-7a). Jesus'
own description of the Father (not a mother) in the Parable of the Lost Son
longing for his own son (Lk. 15.20ff) has some similarities with Anna.
Lastly one cannot help but think of Tobias journey through the country with
Raphael (disguised as Azariah) when reading Hebrews 13.1-3. Some have indeed
been with angels unaware!
Tobit has been very popular through the history of the church. Quoted frequently
in the writings of the Church Fathers, Tobit was found to be a source of healthy
teaching. Polycarp, for example quotes Tobit twice (4.10 & 12.9) in his
Letter to the Philippians (ch. 10). The story of Tobias and Sarah has
often been used in weddings through the centuries. The model of beginning
a relationship in prayer caught the fancy of many a Christian through the years.
Artists have painted and repainted the story dozens of times. You can view
some of those paintings at our website....
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
Kelvin wrote:
You state: "It is apparent that men such as Paul had familiarity with various
secular and uninspired writers, but what does such prove?" Don I have shown,
convincingly I think, that Paul and the Hebrew's Writer not only knew the
Apocrypha but also USED the apocrypha in their writings. The difference
between the Apocrypha and the pagan poets is that the Jewish converts in the
Roman Empire already had the Apocrypha in their Bibles! This was not
limited to outside of Palestine either. The Greek Septuagint has been
discovered in Palestine as well.
Don responds:
Kelvin, again you assume and advance presumptive arguments and then deduce
conclusions. I am not sure that the apostles "USED" the Apocrypha in their
writings. Besides, what is meant by "used"? Did they reference some
of these works? If they did, what do we make of it? I do not think
that we can conclusively prove that the versions of the LXX used by Jesus and
the apostles even had the "Apocrypha." If they did, I think we must
remember that faithful Christians certainly did not ascribe inspiration (I Cor.
14: 37) to the apocryphal writings and did not use them as authority. We
must also keep in mind that if they did refer to the Apocrypha and it was in the
editions of the LXX that they used, this was the only major Greek translation in
a mostly Greek speaking world.
Kelvin wrote:
There are some things that are stated by the Hebrew's Writer that can ONLY come
from apocryphal writings. Paul's image of the armor of God and the very
word "panoplia" comes from Wisdom 5. These things have been shown….and
known for thousands of years. I agree that knowing the some Greek poets
are helpful but they are not part of the Jewish heritage that saturates the mind
of Paul, the Hebrew's Writer, Peter, Jude and even Jesus.
Don says: "What is the point, Kelvin? I thought you did not believe the
Apocryphal books are scripture?" Don, I don't believe the Apocrypha are
canonical scripture. That was not my point. The point was that
these books constitute part of our heritage BECAUSE of
the role they have played in the lives of millions of
ordinary Christians down through the years especially in the early Church.
I pointed to these Fathers because of the value they
placed upon the books.
Don responds:
Again, I have never denied there can be value associated with the Apocrypha. I
have used the Apocrypha in preaching on the period between the "Testaments."
However, I have only used these fallible works to show possible cultural,
societal, and matters of contemporary historicity. Kelvin goes much father
than this to make these works of men urgently valuable in the life of the
Christian. He even sees Paul drawing from Wisdom 5 as the origin ("from")
for his beautiful teaching regarding the amour of God (cp. Eph. 6: 11). I
believe the Holy Spirit was the source of Paul's teaching and not an apocryphal
book. Herein is the serious difference between Kelvin and me and the
reason for this exchange.
Kelvin penned, first quoting me:
Don writes: "While the Apocrypha has a place, these works are shown to be
fallible, containing errors, and not even purporting to be scripture."
Don if we recognize these books for what they are they are of tremendous value,
not just history but inspirational. The Hebrew's Writer is drawing on the
inspirational value of the Maccabean martyrs to exhort his readers. Paul draws
on Wisdom's critique of paganism to speak to the
Romans. Many early Christian missionaries and apologists believed that
Wisdom 2.12-20 was a "prophecy" of the coming of Jesus and used it extensively
to prove the "messiahship" of Christ. (Part of our common heritage) I
promise you if you read the Prayer of Manasseh you will never regret it
As for historical errors, I am cautious about this. I already made a post
to this effect about Baruch and Daniel (to which I have not seen any response
from you over). There are plenty of suspect passages in the Bible, that is
why there is a booming "harmonization" industry.
Some mistakes are not really "errors" if that was not the author's intention to
make historical commentary, we call this the issue of genre. A story may
be a work of historical fiction and have "wrong" data but we don't get upset
because we "understand" the function of genre. Tobit for example is often
looked at as a work of historical fiction . . . with some comic element in it.
The author has done a masterful job. Parables are a sort of historical
fiction. But what ever measuring stick one places on other books, she
better be ready to have it applied to the Bible.
Don concludes this post:
I, frankly, am insulted by many of your foregoing statements, Kelvin. I
view them as biblically deprecating and ascribing too
much importance to the Apocrypha!
Please consider post 7
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Kelvin and the list:
I intend for this answering post to be my final in this good exchange with
Kelvin relative to the role of the Apocrypha in the life of the Christian and in
our Bibles. Again, Kelvin has admirably conducted himself. It has
been very refreshing having an exchange with one who uses his mind rather than
his emotions and all sorts of underhanded dealings. While I do not agree
with the role assignment that Kelvin gives to the Apocrypha, I certainly have
enjoyed the exchange and the quality of character manifested on the part of
Kelvin. I have also learned from it. Kelvin is a very learned person
and I thank him for the time and work he has put into the exchange. I
contend that our emphasis is to be on the scriptures as having all that is
needed for doctrine and for life (2 Pet. 1: 3, 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17). I also
contend for the plenary inspiration of the scriptures (Spirit provided the very
words, I Cor. 2: 13). While Kelvin has not overtly affirmed the
inspiration of the Apocrypha or denied the plenary inspiration of the
scriptures, Kelvin has affirmed some very troubling things, in my view.
Kelvin wrote:
One of the fascinating things about Hebrews 11 is the number of apocryphal
traditions the author refers to. The writer knew these traditions and
obviously thought his readers would as well.
This is just another example of how prevalent the "Apocrypha" is in the NT.
The only reason we fail to see it is because of our lack of knowledge of those
writings. The early church, however, did not miss these connections and
often pointed them out. What follows is brief "comment" from apocryphal writings
on specific verses in Hebrews 11.
Don remarks:
Once again, even if one can establish that "Paul" is drawing from the writings
of the Apocrypha, what is the bottom line? There is absolutely no
intimation in Paul's writings of him recommending the apocrypha or naming them.
He did not present them as a special source of edification and that without
them, we are not complete.
Kelvin contends:
The Traditions of Hebrews 11
1) (Hebrews 11 as a whole) Song of our Faithful Ancestors by Ben Sira provides
the form and basic structure mined by the Hebrew's Writer (Sirach 44-50).
2) The Akedah (11.17-19) or "Binding" of Isaac was an important part of Jewish
liturgies especially New Year's. Pre-Hebrews allusions to the story are in
Wis. Of Sol. 10.5; Sirach 44.20f; 4 Macc. 13.12;
16.20; etc.
3) "Quenched the fury of fire" (11.34). This refers to Shadrach, Meshach
and Abednego in Daniel 3.13ff (LXX). I call attention to the Septuagint version
of Daniel here because all of the Hebrew's writer's quotes and allusions to the
"OT" are from the LXX. That means the version of "Daniel" in front of him
included what we call the "Additions" Specifically what is now called "the
Prayer of Azariah." In this we read:
"Now the king's servants who threw them in kept stoking the furnace with
napththa, pitch, tow, and brushwood. And the flames poured out
above the furnace forty-nine cubits, and spread out
and burned those Chaldeans who were caught near the furnace. But the angel
of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions,
and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace. . . ." (Azariah vv. 23-26).
4) Tortured and refused to be released (11.35). The Seven Brothers of 4
Maccabees 5-16; especially 15.12-15, 20; 16.14.
"Nevertheless, though so many factors influenced the mother to suffer with
them out of love for her children, in the case of none of them were the
various tortures strong enough to pervert her reason. But each child
separately and all of them together the mother urged on to death for religion's
sake. . . This mother, who saw them tortured and burned one by one, because of
religion did not change her attitude. She watched the flesh of her
children being consumed by fire, their toes and fingers scattered on the ground,
and the flesh of the head to the chin exposed like masks. . . When you saw the
flesh of children burned upon the flesh of other children, severed hands upon
hands, scalped heads upon heads, and corpses fallen on other corpses, and when
you saw the place filled with many spectators of the
torturings, you did not shed tears . . . because of her faith in God….
O mother, soldier of God in the cause of religion, elder and woman! By
steadfastness you have conquered even a tyrant, and in word and deed you have
proved more powerful than a man. . . 5) Sawn in two (11.37). The Martyrdom
and Ascension of Isaiah 5.11-14:
"And they seized Isaiah the son of Amoz and sawed him in half with a wood saw.
And Manasseh, and Belkira, and the false prophets, and the princes and the
people, and all stood by looking on. And to the prophets who we were with
him he said before he was sawed in half, 'Go to the district of Tyre and Sidon,
because for me alone the LORD has mixed the cup . . . Beliar did this to Isaiah
through Belkira and through Manasseh, for Sammael was very angry with Isaiah
from the days of Hezekiah . . . And he did as Satan wished."
6) They went around as animals and hid in caves (11.37-38). The Maccabean
martyrs in 2 Maccabees:
"But Judas Maccabeus, with about nine others, got away to the wilderness, and
kept himself and his companions alive in the mountains as wild animals do; they
continued to live on what grew wild, so they might not share in defilement"
(5.27)
"Others who had assembled in the caves nearby, in order to observe the seventh
day secretly, were betrayed to Philip and were all burned together, because
their piety kept them from defending themselves in view of their regard for that
most holy day." (6.11)
"during the festival of booths, they had been wandering in the mountains and
caves like wild animals" (10.6).
These illustrations could go on and on. But we who are "students" of the
world miss a great deal when we do not know the Apocrypha. Here the
Hebrew's writer uses numerous illustrations from the Apocrypha to exhort and
encourage those who were about to give up. He did not seem to have any
problems with doing such a thing. Nor did he first attack the literature
as Roman Catholic. He saw value. He used them because they were of
value. And once we have these background passages in our head Hebrews 11 makes
much more sense! It just shows us how Jewish the early church was . . .
and how disengaged we gentiles are from the founding currents of the apostolic
church.
Don closes:
Kelvin, when I read and study the alluded to texts, my mind is taken back to
Bible characters and events, not the apocryphal books. Again, for
argument's sake, let's grant that the writer could have had certain events in
mind such as are mentioned by the Maccabees. Notice that the writer does
not identify any assumed apocryphal references and certainly does not promote
them.
I think for your defense for having the Apocrypha in our Bibles and for
assigning to these uninspired writings the spiritual importance that you do to
be valid, even if a Spirit led writer does quote or allude to apocryphal
writings, you would have to produce an example where the writer is using the
Apocrypha itself as a source of edification. Again, assuming for
argument's sake that the writers of the New Testament did site or allude to the
Apocrypha, the emphasis is on what they (the apostles) said and what they said
is worthy of our acceptance and reception because Spirit led men wrote it, not
because it is in the Apocrypha. There is a decided difference in this and
in what you have advocated in this exchange.
In closing, you have done an excellent job, Kelvin. I could not have found
a more worthy opponent, both in knowledge, skill, and deportment.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Addendum: To illustrate how some in their zeal and defense of the Apocrypha have gone too far, I shall insert below a brief response post made by me to the hosting list.
Don Martin to David and the list:
I maintain that only books that are inspired of God have in business in the
Bible. It seems that many on this list take issue with me. David
wrote thus as a result of Kelvin’s exaggerated claims as to the usefulness of
the Apocrypha:
"That made me think that in the days of the first century Christians they had
the apocrypha. It was relied on by Paul. Jesus would have been very
familiar much of it also. Yet, through the centuries it has been weeded out so
to speak. Unlike Kelvin, I ain't a scholar on it, but I have read much of
it. I do have I think two bibles that contain it.
It seems that through the ages man took it out of the Bible. Man changed what Peter and Paul would have relied on. It seems to me that we have removed one of the very things we say we keep: the First century!
Maybe I am rambling, but it seems if we were to stay as close to the first
century Christianity as possible we would incorporate the Apocrypha into our
readings.
Do we give it the same high standard as the red words: the words of Christ? No.
But we can use it; Paul did. I don't think we need to through it out."
Don with a question:
David, do you believe the Apocrypha, since "Paul relied on it," is inspired?
By "inspired" I mean the very words provided by the Holy Spirit in the sense of
I Corinthians 2: 13, 14: 37. Remember, you have said that "Man changed
what Peter and Paul would have relied on." If Paul "relied on" the
Apocrypha, since Paul was Spirit led, would not such apply to the Apocrypha?
Thanks in advance for your answer. (David would not answer the question.)
Cordially,
Don Martin