Different religions under the umbrella of Christianity have a Bible as the basis for their beliefs; however there is difference between the numbers of books they include in their Bible. Protestants and Evangelicals believe that there are only 39 books in the Old Testament while the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox churches accept more books than the Protestants. The real problem is not whether there should be more books in the Old Testament than the 39 books accepted by the Protestants; but the question is whether the additional books beyond the accepted 39 books in Old Testament of the Protestant Bible are inspired and whether their doctrine is acceptable. Obviously if the additional books are not inspired they should not be in the Bible at all. Protestants and Evangelicals believe that these additional books not only luck divine inspiration but also mislead readers to false and ungodly doctrines. Therefore it is necessary for believers to know which books of the Bible are inspired and should be in the Bible and which should not be. There paper, henceforth, addresses the issue of Canonization and why the additional books called Apocrypha should not be in the Bible. To do so first the meaning and history of canonization will be discussed. Then what Apocryphal books are and why they should not be included in the Bible will be discussed.
The Meaning of Canon
The word “canon” is derived from the Greek word kanon) which means a ruler, a rod or a measuring stick. “Kanon”, as Carolyn Ratcliffe explains in her book Postexilic Biblical Literature,
was a straight rod or reed with same mark that formed a standard or norm by which things are measured, judged or evaluated. Each kanon had the same mark with the same distance between the marks, much like the contemporary yard stick or ruler. Therefore, the word ‘canon’ carries this concept of standard.
In Christianity the word canon refers to the list of authoritative books inspired by God. Those books in the canon are believed to be divinely inspired books and collectively called Canon because it serves as a measuring stick or standard for believers both for their belief and conduct. The Canonical books are divided into the Old Testament and New Testament canon. Though the Canonization of the New Testament has its own history and challenges, in this paper only the Old Testament Canon will be the center of the discussion.
The History of the Canonization of the Old Testament
The Old Testament discusses God’s salvation through the people of Israel, and the Jews divided the Old Testament in to three parts –the Torah which contains the five books of the law, the prophets which they divide into the former prophets (i.e. Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 kings) and the latter prophets (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets) and the Writings which contain the rest of the books in the Old Testament. Since the Jews count some of the books like 1 and 2 Samuel as well as the twelve minor prophets as one book, the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain 39 books as the protestant Old Testament does. However, the books in the Old Testament both in the Hebrew and the Protestant Bible are the same.
The Old Testament Canon was not given by God over night; however the process took hundreds of years to be finalized into the present form. Though it is difficult to know how the Old Testament compiled in the form we have it now, there are two major theories as to how the Old Testament was canonized. Some believe in what Ratcliffe calls it “Tri-fold Theory of Canonization,” while others believe in what is called “Two-fold Theory of Canonization.”
According to the first one, the three parts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings) were added to the Canon at three different times. The Torah was compiled and accepted as the canon by 400 BC after the Jews return from Babylon exile. The Prophets were compiled and added to the Canon by 200 BC, and the remaining part, which is the Writings, was canonized before the advent of Christ and confirmed by the counsel of Jamnia in the 90 AD.
The second theory concludes that the Torah was canonized sometime after the Jews return from the exile, and the other parts, i.e. the prophets and the writings were canonized sometime before coming of Christ.
Even though no one can be sure about how the canonization process took place, it was clear even in the New Testament that the Old Testament had three divisions as discussed above. Jesus indicated in his speech that the Old Testament is divided into the Law the Prophets and the Psalms which is the first book of the Writings section in Luke 24:44.
Why the Apocrypha should be rejected.
When it comes to the number of the books of the Old Testament, the Catholic as well as the Orthodox churches have more books than what the Hebrew Old Testament book contains. Those books that are accepted as the canonical books but not found in the Hebrew or the protestant Bible are called Apocrypha. Now the question would be what are the apocrypha books and why can’t we add them in the canon.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives a hint what apocrypha is and what the apocrypha books are.
The word apocrypha is from the Greek ta apokrypha (the hidden things), although there is no strict sense in which these are hidden. Some thirteen books comprise the OT Apocrypha: 1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Ester, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also titled the wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach), Baruch, and Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Menasses, and 1-2 Meccabees.
Whether these books are inspired and should be included in the canon has been confusing to many and has been a center of debate from the first few centuries of the church history. As a result some like Catholic Church believe they are inspired, and should be included in the Bible while the evangelicals and Protestants refuse to do so.
Those who believe in the inspiration of the Apocrypha believe in them because the Apocrypha was contained in the LXX i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the mid third Century before Christ, and the New Testament authors used the LXX as they quote from the Old Testament. The other major reason is that there can be found a lot of allusions and reflections between the New Testament and the Apocrypha books, and therefore they suggest that the New Testament writers depended on Apocrypha as they write their New Testament books. Other reasons can be referred as to why some accepted them as inspired books but they are not as strong as these two. For the purpose of this paper’s sake, however, only these two reasons will be enough.
We believe, because of the invalidly of the above reasons and for other strong evidences, Apocrypha books should be rejected as inspired documents of the Old Testament. First, it is true that the Apocryphal books were contained in the LXX translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; however, no one knows whether the original LXX had Apocryphal books in it. In fact, when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek the first time in the middle of the third century before Christ, it was only the Pentateuch that was translated, and the latter books of the Bible were added later. The earlier LXX book that contains the Apocrypha is from the fourth century. May be the LXX books the New Testament authors used did not have Apocrypha, or even if it did no writer of New Testament has quoted from it since it is not inspired.
It is true that many parallel vocabularies, sentences and even paragraph could be found between the apocrypha books and some New Testament books. For example one can find a lot of similarities between the words of Paul in Rom 1:18 -32 in the New Testament and Wis 13-14 to the point one concludes that Paul had been dependant on the book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha. However, all the supposedly similar words and paragraph does not necessarily show the dependence of the New Testament writers on the Apocrypha writers. Instead, these kinds of similarities can be found because of the motif both authors use and incorporate as they write their works.
In addition to the above, no New Testament writer has quoted a verse even from one single book in the apocrypha. Many quotations are made in the New Testament from the Torah. The New Testament writers quoted both from the prophets and the writings in confirming the authority of the Torah, the prophets and the writings. However, when it comes to the Apocrypha no reference is made in the New Testament that supports its inspiration.
The biggest problem with Apocrypha is that these books not only contradict with the teachings of the other books of the Bible but also they lead believers to immorality. Doctrine wise, these books teach the acceptance of prayer and offerings for dead people, and it also supports the doctrine of Purgatory. Character wise these books justify suicide, theft, lying, cruelty to slaves and salvation by giving money to poor. Therefore these books are not only misleading but also dangerous if accepted as authoritative books.
Therefore even though different beliefs teach that there are different amount of authoritative books in the Old Testament, the correct authoritative books of the Old Testament are the ones listed down in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Protestant Old Testament. Any book other than this is should not be accepted.
Bibliography
Dentan, Robert C. The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments. New York: The Seabury Press, 1964.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Harrington, Daniel J. “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today.” In The Canon Debet, ed. Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, 196 – 110. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
Ratcliff, Carolyn. Postesilic Biblical Litrature. San Antonio: Wayland Baptist University,2007.
Thiem, R. B. Canocity. Houston: R. B. Thiem, Jr., Ministries, 1973.
Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Acadamics, 2001, s.v. “The Old Testament Apocrypha” by D. H. Wallace
