The short booklet (86 pages) titled, "Is The Apocrypha Inspired Scripture?" is now available as a free PDF download. Simply right click the link below, then click "save as", and save the booklet to your computer. It is my sincere hope that you will find this short booklet both educational and helpful.

Although a PDF reader is necessary to open this file, most computers come with the Adobe PDF reader pre-installed. If your computer does not have this program, it is available as a free download from the Adobe Acrobat website.

Is the Apocrypha Inspired Scripture – Part 4

A Response to Rev. Henry Graham's Book, “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church”
In the course of writing this article series, I had occasion to converse with several Roman Catholic apologists. One of them suggested I read “Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt To The Catholic Church” by Rev. Henry G. Graham. I found the book and read it. In reading it I discovered it was not just an attempt by Rev. Graham to validate the Roman Catholic church's position regarding the inspiration of the apocrypha; but it appeared to me that Rev. Graham also took the opportunity to toss in some derogatory comments regarding Protestants. When asked if I had read the book, I commented that I had, but that I did not appreciate the anti-Protestant bigotry presented by Rev. Graham. To which the Roman Catholic apologist retorted, “That's your bigotry coming out.”

In the way of a response to the false claim of my bigotry, I present you to, Reader, those sections of Rev. Graham's book that clearly show his anti-Protestant sentiments. What he really thinks of Protestants.
1. Rev. Graham claims Protestants invent lies about the Roman Catholic church.
“The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history. All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour. She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her.”
2. Rev. Graham claims Protestants are delusional.
“A last point must always be kept clearly in mind, for it concerns one of the greatest delusions entertained by Protestants and makes their fierce attacks on Rome appear so silly and irrational—the point, namely that the Bible, as we have it now, was not printed in any language at all till about 1500 years after the birth of Christ, for the simple reason that there was no such thing as printing known before that date.”
[Note: no Protestant I am aware thinks there was no Bible prior to the printing press. Not one. And no Protestant I am aware of actually believes no one knew how to print prior to 1500 A.D.]
3. Rev. Graham claims Protestants believe salvation is gained by owning a Bible.
Graham states Protestants believe salvation is gained by owning a Bible, and that every soul for 1500 years went to hell. He calls is the “most flagrant absurdity.” In reality, however, this is a bald faced lie as no Protestant every believed or taught this heresy. Graham wrote: “The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.”
4. Rev. Graham is dismissive of Protestant beliefs.
“It was written by the Church, by members (Apostles and Evangelists) of the Church; it belongs to the Church, and it is her office, therefore, to declare what it means. It is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church’s doctrines and Divine authority; but as a complete and exclusive guide to Heaven in the hands of every man—this it never was and never could be. The Bible in the Church; the Church before the Bible—the Church the Maker and Interpreter of the Bible—that is right. The Bible above the Church; the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible, and the Bible only, the Religion of Christians—that is wrong. The one is the Catholic position; the other the Protestant.”
5. Rev. Graham mocks the Protestant belief that the early church, from the days of the Apostles, had God's Word.
“Now we know that the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament were read aloud to the congregations of Christians that met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves), one Gospel here, another there; one Epistle of St Paul in one place, another in another; all scattered about in various parts of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is, when were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make up what we now call the Bible? Well, they were not collected for the best part of 300 years. So that here again I am afraid is a hard nut for Protestants to crack”
6. Rev. Graham claims that without the Roman Catholic church, the Protestants would not have a Bible.
“It is through the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants have got their Bible; there is not (to paraphrase some words of Newman) a Protestant that vilifies and condemns the Catholic Church for her treatment of Holy Scripture, but owes it to that Church that he has the Scripture at all. What Almighty God might have done if Rome had not handed down the Bible to us is a fruitless speculation with which we have nothing whatever to do.”
[Note: It seems rather arrogant for someone to think God needed the Roman Catholic church to produce a Bible, as if God could figure no other way.]
7. Rev. Graham claims Protestant's “cast out” inspired Scripture to invent a new canon.
“Therefore, I say that for people to step in 1500 years after the Catholic Church had had possession of the Bible, and to pretend that it is theirs, and that they alone know what the meaning of it is, and that the Scriptures alone, without the voice of the Catholic Church explaining them, are intended by God to be the guide and rule of faith—this is an absurd and groundless claim. Only those who are ignorant of the true history of the Sacred Scriptures—their origin and authorship and preservation—could pretend that there is any logic or commonsense in such a mode of acting. And the absurdity is magnified when it is remembered that the Protestants did not appropriate the whole of the Catholic books, but actually cast out some from the collection, and took what remained, and elevated these into a new 'Canon’, or volume of Sacred Scripture, such as had never been seen or heard of before, from the first to the sixteenth century, in any Church, either in Heaven above or on earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth!”
[Note: What Rev. Graham fails to mention is, that the Protestant Bible contains the exact same books as Melito of Sardis listed in 170 A.D. “new Canon” indeed!]
8. Rev. Graham claims Protestants “deliberately cut out” the apocrypha.
“Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting—that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called 'the Song of the Three Children’, (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them.”
[Note: What Rev. Graham fails to mention is that the apocrypha was rejected by the early Church until the late fourth century. See part two of this series.]
9. Rev. Graham claims early Protestant Reformers were sacrilegious and unhappy.
“The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church.”
10. Rev. Graham claims early Protestant Reformers were contemptuous of Holy Scripture, picking only those books that fit their personal beliefs.
“The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1000 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment—of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste.”
11. Rev. Graham claims Protestant Martin Luther mutilated God's Word, and added his own personal beliefs to it.
“Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St Paul’s doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith’, and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word 'only’ after St Paul’s words, making the sentence run: 'We are justified by Faith only’, and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day.”
12. Rev. Graham claims Protestants are ignorant, stupid and unlettered, and have created their own Bible and religion.
“But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself.”
13. Rev. Graham accuses Protestants of elevating the Bible into a false position.
“The Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God’s Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position.”
14. Rev. Graham claims Protestants will receive God's curse for taking away from the Book of Life.
“Which has proved, by its actions, its love and veneration? and which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life?”
[Note: This is a bald-faced lie, as no one can remove anything from the Lamb's Book of Life, save God Himself.]
15. Rev. Graham accuses Protestants of adding to the Bible.
“Consider the various ways in which corruptions and variations could be introduced. The variations might have been (a) intentionally introduced or (b) unintentionally. (a) Under this class we must unfortunately reckon those changes which were made by heretics to suit their particular doctrine or practice, just as, for example, the Lutherans added the word 'only’ to St. Paul’s words to fit in with their new fangled notion about 'justification by faith only’.”
16. Rev. Graham mocks Protestants, and claims they do not understand the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy.
“Well, the Bibles, before printing, are full of varieties and differences and blunders. Which of them all is correct? Pious Protestants may hold up their hands in horror and cry out, 'there are no mistakes in the Bible! it is all inspired! it is God’s own Book!’”
[Note: Protestants are, and have always been, knowledgeable of the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy. Protestants know infallibility extends only to the original manuscripts; and inerrancy refers to the Bible not containing any error in doctrine. Again Rev. Graham presents a caricature of Protestants]
17. Rev. Graham claims Protestants are to blame for the rampant sin of the twentieth century.
“People in ages to come will, mayhap, regard this century with its boasted progress and civilisation, and this land with 350 years of Protestantism behind it as an age and a country where drunkenness and dishonesty and immorality and matrimonial unfaithfulness and extravagance and unbelief and youthful excesses and insubordination and barbarity of manners were so universally and so deeply rooted that the authorities of the kingdom were simply helpless to cope with them.”
18. Rev. Graham speaks dismissively of Protestants, implying Protestants know nothing of Roman Catholic history.
“Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Protestants to believe this).”
[Note: More than anyone, Protestants are well aware of the Spanish Inquisition; and that the Roman Catholic church published Bibles in Spain. Roman Catholic church approved Bibles that is.]
19. Rev. Graham claims the beliefs of John Wycliffe, an early forerunner of Protestantism, were “pestilential errors.”
“It was not from hostility to a translated Bible as such that the Church condemned Wycliff; and that she [the Roman Catholic church] never would have issued her decree, if his sole purpose had been the edification and sanctification of the readers. It was only when the design of the Lollards was discovered, and Wycliff’s subtle plot unmasked of disseminating their pestilential errors through his translation, that the Church’s condemnation fell upon him.”
[Note: John Wycliffe was not a Lollard. His followers were known as Lollards. And the “pestilential errors” the Roman Catholic church condemned him for were: 1. The pope had no part to play in worldly affairs; 2. The church was too worldly; 3. Monasticism had drifted from its spiritual foundation; 4. The Bible should be available to everyone in their own language; 5. 'Dominion is of Grace', that is, true power is God's, and attempts to use power for individual gain is therefore wrong. Although the Roman Catholic church wanted Wycliffe turned over to them, the king of England refused to allow it. When a monarch sympathetic to the Roman Catholic church came into power, some 41 years after Wycliffe's death, the Roman Catholic church still wanted revenge on Wycliffe, so they exhumed his remains, and burned them.]
20. Rev. Graham again claims Protestants believe no one could be saved prior to the invention of the printing press.
“On Protestant principles it must seem a pity that the Lord waited so many centuries before He invented printing machines to spread Bibles about among the people; and it seems also very hard on all preceding generations that slipped away without this lamp to their feet and light unto their path.”
[And again, this is a bald-faced lie. No Protestant has ever believed this.]
21. Rev. Graham makes untrue, libelous defamatory statements about Protestant Reformer William Tyndale.
“Well, William Tyndale (and for that matter Martin Luther too), was born almost a 100 years after John Wycliff died, that is, 1484. He studied at Oxford and became a priest, and was seized with the ambition of getting the Bible printed in England. Now, there were three great objections to this step being approved. In the first place, Tyndale was not the man to do it; he was utterly unfitted for such a great work. He says himself he was 'evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.’ He had no special qualifications for the task of translation. He was but a mediocre scholar, and could not boast of anything above the average intellect.”
[Note: William Tyndale was a theologian and a biblical scholar. He could speak seven languages and was proficient in both ancient Hebrew and Greek. He was hardly a “mediocre scholar” of “average intellect.” What better man to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures than one who is proficient in those languages?]
22. Rev. Graham claims the teaching of Protestant Martin Luther was heresy.
“The Lutheran Revolution was in full swing abroad (1520), and the Lutheran heresy was spreading everywhere, carrying with it rebellion and immorality, and the English Bishops might well have cause to fear lest the infection should poison the faithful under their own jurisdiction.”
[Note: Martin Luther's beliefs were taken directly from God's word. To call them heresy is to call God's word heresy.]
23. Rev. Graham again makes untrue libelous statements about Protestant Reformer William Tyndale.
“[Tyndale was an] irresponsible private chaplain [who] had become already known as a man of dangerous views, who was exceedingly insulting in his manner, unscrupulous, and of a most violent temper. … [the Tyndale translation] was a false and erroneous and anti-Catholic version of the Holy Scriptures. It was full of Lutheran heresies. Tyndale had fallen under the influence of the German Reformer, who by this time had revolted from Rome. About 1522 he had been suspected and tried for heresy; he had declared: 'I defy the Pope and all his laws’; and now he actually embodied in his English version Luther’s notes and explanations of texts, which were as full of venom and hatred against Rome as an egg is full of meat. 'It has long been a notorious fact,’ says Mr. Allnatt (in his Bible and the Reformation), 'that all the early Protestant versions of the Bible literally swarmed with gross and flagrant corruptions—corruptions consisting in the wilful and deliberate mistranslation of various passages of the sacred text, and all directly aimed against those doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church which the “Reformers” were most anxious to uproot. But the most interesting point about the whole affair is that time has abundantly justified the action of the Catholic Church and proved that she did the proper thing in attempting to stamp out Tyndale’s Bible.” [emphasis added]
[Note: The way in which the Roman Catholic church attempted to stamp out Tyndale's Bible was the same way in which the Roman Catholic church dealt with those who broke away from her – at least those they caught. They tried Tyndale and pronounced him guilty of heresy. They then publicly degraded him, bound him to a beam, and fixed both an iron chain and a rope around his neck. They then stacked wood around him and added gunpowder to it. A Roman Catholic official then gave the signal, and the executioner began strangling him with the chain and rope, as the fire was lit by another Roman Catholic official. The Roman Catholic church murdered William Tyndale in a horrible, tortuous, and inhumane manner. So much for the love of Christ the Roman church claims it possesses.]
24. Rev. Graham then presents a bald-faced lie about Protestant Reformer John Calvin.
“as Luther a few years before burnt the books of Canon Law, and the Bull of Pope Leo, and in 1522 John Calvin burnt all the copies he could collect of Servetus’ Bible at Geneva, because these contained some notes he did not think were orthodox. Indeed Calvin went a step further than that—he burned Servetus himself.”
[Note: Calvin did not burn Michael Servetus. Nor did he play any role in his death. Local officials, whom Calvin had no authority or influence over, tried Servetus and executed him in the same manner used by the Roman Catholic church. They burned him to death. Calvin was actually friends with Servetus, and spent many long hours with him in his cell comforting him and begging him to recant the statements he had made which had served to convict him. Again, Calvin did not kill Servetus, nor did he play any role in his death. I do not blame Rev. Graham for his false statements, as he is merely repeating the official Roman Catholic position on John Calvin.]
25. Rev. Graham accuses Protestants of inventing a rule of faith and mocking religion.
“Or had Protestants a different Rule of Faith according to the century in which they lived? according to the copy of the Bible they chanced to possess? What a mockery of Religion! What a degradation of God’s Holy Word, that it should have been knocked about like a shuttlecock, and made to serve the interests now of this sect, now of that, and loaded with notes that shrieked aloud party war-cries and bitter accusations and filthy insinuations! Is this zeal for the pure and incorrupt Gospel? Is this the grand and unspeakable blessing of the 'open Bible’? It only remains now to show by contrast the calm, dignified, and reverent action taken by the Catholic Church, towards her own Book.”
[Note: The Protestant rule of faith is based solely on God's word. Not according to the time period in which we may live. Nor do we make the Bible serve our personal interests. Nor do we shriek “aloud party war-cries and make bitter accusations and filthy insinuations.” And thankfully we are not calm and dignified and reverent as the Roman Catholic church has been when they murdered innumerable people for disagreeing with them.]
26. Rev. Graham states Protestants are fanatics, clowns, and heretics from the pit of hell. He also claims the Protestants have revived the old heresies.
“By the end of the sixteenth century no less than 270 new sects had been enumerated, and some that had been extinct for centuries, like Arianism, revived under the genial influence of Luther. Dr. Walton, Bishop of Chester, and author of the famous Polyglott Bible that bears his name, laments this fact in his Preface about the end of the seventeenth century. 'There is no fanatic or clown’ ' says he, 'from the lowest dregs of the people who does not give you his own dreams as the Word of God. For the bottomless pit seems to have been set open from whence a smoke has risen which has obscured the heavens and the stars, and locusts are come out with wings—a numerous race of sectaries and heretics, who have renewed all the old heresies, and invented monstrous opinions of their own.”
[Note: This statement of Rev. Graham's is not simply another bald-faced lie. It is a lie designed to stir up animosity towards Protestants. This is born out by the numerous Roman Catholics who continue to propagate this same or similar lie.]
27. Rev. Graham states Protestants are violent, blundering malicious sectaries who treat God's word with infinite degradation and contempt.
“Who is there that has followed the sad story of the non-Catholic treatment of the Sacred Scriptures but will be forced by contrast to admire the wisdom, the calm dignity, the consistent and deliberate policy of the Ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic Church in England, which stands as a reproof to the violent, blundering, malicious methods of the sectaries and which, if it had been acquiesced in by others, would have saved the Word of God from infinite degradation and contempt?”


I believe it is very clear that my conclusion of Rev. Graham was correct. His own words prove that he is strongly anti-Protestant, and clearly bigoted against Protestants. My stating this obvious fact, again as born out by his own words, is not in and of itself any indication of bigotry on my part.
Rev. Graham's position on the Bible and the apocrypha is, in my opinion, so poorly presented in his book, that if anything it lends support to the fact the apocrypha is not divinely inspired Scripture, and should never be treated as such. God's Holy Word stands alone as divinely inspired, without the apocrypha.
**********



List of Research Sources Used in Preparing This Series of Articles:
1. Roman Catholic Sources
5 Myths about 7 Books

by Mark Shea
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html


A Second Response to William Webster on Esdras
By “The Catholic Legate,” May 7, 2007
http://www.catholic-legate.com/a-second-response-to-william-webster-on-esdras-2/


Catholic Biblical Apologetics
By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl, Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © Copyright 1985-2004, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm


Defending the Deuterocanonicals
by James Akin
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM


Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament
by John Salza
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
used here by his permission



Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?
By “matt1618”
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html


How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist charges?
Catholic Answers Staff, August 04, 2011
https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-i-defend-the-book-of-judith-against-fundamentalist-charges


New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Entry for “Apocrypha” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm


New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Entry for “Codex Alexandrinus”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04080c.htm


New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Entry for “Codex Vaticanus”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm


Response to White’s Assumption(s)
by Steve Ray, August 16, 2007
http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2007/08/16/response-to-whites-assumptions/


The Apocrypha?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/bible/the-apocrypha/


The Collegeville Bible Commentary Series, Volume 1
The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old Testament
edited by Dianne Bergant, Robert J. Karris, Liturgical Press, 1992
NIHIL OBSTAT: Robert C. Harren, J.C.L. Censor Deputatus
IMPRIMATUR: + Jerome Harms, O.S.B. Bishop of St. Cloud, October 19, 1988
(note: Fr. Robert Karris is a past president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America and currently research professor at The Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University.)


Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church
by The Right Rev. Henry G. Graham
Originally published in the Catholic Press, 1908-1909
https://archive.org/details/WhereWeGotTheBibleOurDebtToTheCatholicChurch




2. Protestant Sources
A Further Response to Gary Michuta and John Betts on 1 Esdras

by James Swan, April 23, 2007
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/23/a-further-response-to-gary-michuta-and-john-betts-on-1-esdras/


A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint by Henry Thackeray, Cambridge University Press, 1909


Ancient Canon Lists
Bible Research by Michael D. Marlowe Website
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html


Apostolic Bible Polyglot, 2nd Edition
Charles Van der Pool, translator


Are The Canons Of Carthage And Trent The Same?
by Jason Engwer, April 23, 2007
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-canons-of-carthage-and-trent-same.html


Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I
by James White, March 28, 2007
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/03/28/bill-webster-responds-to-gary-michuta-part-i/


Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II
by James White, March 30, 2007
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/03/30/bill-webster-responds-to-gary-michuta-part-ii/


Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II
by James White, April 1, 2007
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/01/bill-webster-responds-to-gary-michuta-part-iii/


Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)
Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures
http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html


Canon Fire
by “First Things,” January 2008
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2008/01/canon-fire


Documents of the Early Church, Henry Bettenson – Editor, Oxford University Press, 1953


“Enoch, Book of,” Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. III, John M‘Clintock, and James Strong, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1969


Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, translated from the original, Baker Book House, 1958


Gary Michuta Says: Read My Book
by James Swan, April 4, 2007
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/04/gary-michuta-says-read-my-book/


Melito of Sardis and the Old Testament Canon: Overview & Arguments
by James Swan, May 30, 2010
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/melito-of-sardis-and-old-testament.html?m=1


New Catholic Encyclopedia: The Canon Was Not Settled Until Trent
by James Swan, August 07, 2015
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-catholic-encyclopedia-canon-was-not.html


St. Augustine's City of God, Chapter 8.—The Canonical Books.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.v.viii.html


Study resources for the Old and New Testament Canon
Appendix A: Primary Sources for the Study of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Canon
From: Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate, Appendix A, B, p 580-584, 2002
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-resource-list-macdonald.htm


Team Apologian

by James Swan, May 9, 2007
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.mx/2007/05/team-apologian.html


The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (1867-1885)
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I (1885)
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II (1885)
28 Volumes Total
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (original translators and editors);
Philip Schaff (editor)
Originally published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland
Published in America by the Christian Literature Company, edited by A. Cleveland Coxe
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff



The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
by R.H. Charles, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1913


The Apocrypha is Not Scripture
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Part 1: http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle1/
Part 2: http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle2/
Part 3: http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle3/
Part 4: http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle4/
Part 5: http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocrypha-article-5-a-closing-remark/


The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon
by Robert C. Newman, Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348, Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf


The Michuta Canon Dilemma
by James Swan, April 7, 2007
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/04/michuta-canon-dilemma.html


The Old Covenant, commonly called the Old Testament, by Thomson, Charles, 1729-1824; Aitken, Jane, 1764-1832. pbl; Pells, S. F. (Samuel Frederick); Massachusetts Bible Society, Published 1904


The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha
A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha from The Jewish Age to the Reformation
by William Webster
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html


The Roman Catholic Canon and the Book of Esdras (Part One)
by James Swan, June 17, 2016
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-roman-catholic-canon-and-book-of.html


The Roman Catholic Canon and the Book of Esdras (Part Two)
by James Swan, June 24, 2016
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-roman-catholic-canon-and-book-of_24.html


The Septuagint Bible
Translation Of Charles Thomson, 1774-1789, As Edited, Revised, and Enlarged By C. A. Muses M.A. Ph.D (Columbia), Printed by Jane Aitken, No. 71, 1808
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/charles_thomson/


The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, translated by William Whiston, Hendrickson, 1989


3. Jewish Sources


Council of Jamnia and Old Testament Canon
by Peter Shirokov and Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg March 8, 2014
http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/jamnia/


Jewish Encyclopedia entry for “Ahasuerus”

by Gerson B. Levi, Kaufmann Kohler, George A. Barton
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/967-ahasuerus


Jewish Encyclopedia entry for “Artaxerxes I”
by Richard Gottheil, Eduard Meyer
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1827-artaxerxes-i


Jewish Encyclopedia entry for “ESDRAS, BOOKS OF”
by Richard Gottheil, Enno Littmann, Kaufmann Kohler
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5852-esdras-books-of


4. Secular Sources


Chronological List of Early Papyri and MSS for LXX/OG Study (plus the same MSS in Canonical Order appended)

collected by Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/earlylxx/earlypaplist.html


Codex Sinaiticus:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org


Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Volume XI, Sacrifice-Sudra, Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1921, edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray


St. Jerome, The Prologue on the Book of Ezra: English translation
[Translated by Mark DelCogliano]
The Prologue of Eusebius Hieronymus on the Book of Ezra
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm


The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: their Titles and Fragments Collected, Translated and Discussed, by Montague Rhodes James, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (NY: Macmillan) 1920 [UPenn BS 1700.J3; electronic edition coordinated by Robert Kraft, 2002
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/mrjames/james.htm


The Septuagint
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm


The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Sir Lancelot CL Brenton edition, originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London 1851, The English Septuagint is made available by Ernest C. Marsh, “The Common Man's Prospective” website (http://ecmarsh.com), 2010

http://www.bennozuiddam.com/Septuagint.pdf


Wikipedia entry for “Septuagint Manuscripts”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts


Wikipedia entry for “Rylands Papyri”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Papyri


Wikipedia entry for “Codex Vaticanus”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus


Wikipedia entry for “Codex Alexandrinus”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus

Is the Apocrypha Inspired Scripture? - Part Three
Did the Roman Catholic Church Discern the Canon of Scripture Under The Power of The Holy Spirit?

As shown in part one, the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings were never mentioned in the New Testament. It is likely this is at least one reason why the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings were not generally accepted by the early church fathers of the first three centuries of the Church (as shown in part 2). Another reason why they were likely not generally accepted is because they contain so many errors, mistakes, and contradictions, as we will see here in part three.
Inspired Scripture is, among Christians, believed to be infallible and inerrant. First, let's set forth some definitions. Inspired simply means the Bible is “God breathed.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Greek word translated “inspiration” is theopneustos, and literally means “God-breathed.” It comes from the root words, theos (which is the Greek word for God) and pneō (which is the Greek word for blow). Therefore, the word theopneustos (inspiration) means not just God-breathed, but the breath spoken of is an exhaled breath as when a person speaks a word. Therefore, according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, all Scripture is breathed out by God. This is what is meant by Scripture is inspired.
Biblical infallibility means the Bible makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice. The inerrancy of the Bible means that Scripture does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. While inerrancy is believed to extend only to the original manuscripts, it also extends to blatantly obvious errors in the translations we have today. Therefore, if the Bible were to present anything that is obviously contrary to established historical fact, the Bible can then be legitimately called into question. What this means is, if there is a minor scribal error (i.e. a misspelled word, an incorrect contraction, maybe an extra zero added to the end of a number, or something similar) then that does not negatively affect the inerrancy of the Bible. However, if there is a major error, a direct contradiction, an anachronistic entry, etcetera; then the inclusion of such an error – even just one – disqualifies it from any possibility of inspiration. In other words, if Scripture is not inspired, then it is not from God.
The historical reliability of the Scripture in question may very well be outstanding. It may very well be without question. However, if there is a major error within that Scripture, even just one, then it is not inspired of God. It is not from God, plain and simple. If one believes that a Scripture which contains such errors is still inspired, must automatically believe that God Himself is fallible; and, of course, a fallible god is not the God of the Bible.
And that brings us to the issue of errors that appear in the apocrypha. Does the apocrypha contain serious errors? In a word, yes. What follows are a few examples of the numerous errors, contradictions, and false teachings found in the Apocrypha.


The Apocrypha Contradicts Universally Accepted Scripture
1. Creation
The Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 11, verse 18, states, “For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions”(DRA)
The statement that the Lord made the world out of “matter without form” (“formless matter” in the CEB), is a direct contradiction to Genesis 1:1-3; Psalm 33:6-9; and Hebrews 11:3 which tell us that God spoke creation into existence, that He created the earth and the universe ex nihilo, or out of nothing. He did not create the earth and the universe out of any kind of pre-existing matter or energy – formless or otherwise. He created it all out of absolutely nothing.
2. The Soul
The Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 8, verses 19-20 read, “And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.”(DRA)
This passage in Wisdom teaches the pre-existence of souls. Whether it means reincarnated souls as Hinduism teaches, or souls created as the result of sexual relations between god and his wives as Mormonism teaches, or that God simply creates souls and then waits for babies to be born for Him to assign those souls is unknown, as all three can be reasonably inferred from the Wisdom passage. Regardless, however, the pre-existence of souls is a contradiction of the Bible's teaching that souls are formed within us at the moment of conception, as taught in Psalm 139:13-16 and Zechariah 12:1.
3. Imputed Sin
Again, the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 8, verses 19-20 read, “And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.”(DRA)
Note verse 20, “...I came to a body undefiled.” Just as this passage teaches the pre-existence of souls, it also teaches that a soul may enter the body “undefiled.” This is a contradiction of the Bible's teaching that everyone is sinful at the moment of conception (when the soul is actually formed within us), as Scripture teaches in Psalm 51:5, which says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me”(NKJV), as well as in Romans chapter 5.
4. Praying and Paying for the Remission of the Sins of the Dead
2 Maccabees 12:42-46 reads, “42 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. 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, 44 (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,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”(DRA)
Verses 42 and 46 teach the doctrine of praying for the sins of those who have already died, in order to have their sins forgiven so they can enter the presence of the Lord. Verse 43 teaches the doctrine of paying or sacrificing money to the Lord, in order to pay for the sins of those who have already died, again so they may enter the presence of the Lord.
Both of these doctrines (which have been adopted by the Roman Catholic church) find their origins in the pagan practices of the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as numerous other ancient pagan societies. These practices continue to this day in the Roman Catholic church, in the form of prayers and mass for the dead, indulgences, and the doctrine of purgatory. They are, however, both contrary to what the Bible teaches. Ezekiel 18:20 tells us, “The soul who sins shall die. … The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”(NKJV) Hebrews 9:27 reads, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”(NKJV) (cf. Luke 16:20-31; 2 Corinthians 5:6-10; Revelation 20:11-15).
Clearly, the Bible teaches that prayers and/or sacrifices for the sins of the dead have absolutely no bearing on whether or not they will go to heaven. When someone dies they either have salvation or they do not, and if they do not, then they will go before the Lord to be judged for their sins before being cast into the lake of fire. Contrary to 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, there is no second chance. No purgatory, no effectual prayers or sacrifices for the dead. There is death, and then there is judgment. “the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”(Ez.18:20). Praying for the dead, and/or sacrificing for the dead, are pagan practices that are contrary to the Scripture, and are, as are all pagan practices, an abomination to the Lord. Making pagan practices a part of Scripture, and saying they are inspired of God, is blasphemous heresy.
5. Atonement for Sin
Tobit 12:9 reads “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”(DRA); and 2 Maccabees 12:43 reads “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”(DRA)
These two apocryphal passages teach that one may atone for his or her own sins by giving alms (charitable donations), or, if the person dies, then someone else can pay for their sins, literally, by making a valuable offering to the Lord (today, this would equate to the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences). The problem, however, is that these practices are contrary to the Bible. Scripture teaches, quite clearly, that nothing we can do, no physical act that we can do such as giving alms or offering indulgences, can take away sin. Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”(NKJV) Salvation comes only through faith in Christ, and never as the result of any works we may do. And God specifically excludes salvation as the result of any works so as to prevent the possibility of someone claiming or believing that they were able to do something to save either themselves, or another.
Additionally, the Bible tells us that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ – not works – and by publicly confessing Him as Lord, and sincerely believing that God raised Jesus from the dead (John 14:6; Romans 10:9-10; cf. Hebrews 9:11-28). There are, of course, other biblical doctrines that play into this, such as regeneration, predestination, election, etc., however, this is the basic biblical doctrine of salvation, and it nowhere includes works of any kind. Both Tobit and 2 Maccabees are teaching doctrines that are seriously contradictory to Scripture.
6. Suicide
Suicide is the equivalent of murder – self-murder. It usurps God's authority and sovereignty because only God has the authority to determine how and when a person should die. “My times are in your hands” Scripture says in Psalms 31:15; and only God has the authority to give or take away life (Job 1:21). No man or woman should presume to take God's authority upon themselves to end their life.
The Apocrypha, however, teaches that contrary to Scripture, suicide can be a noble and manly act. 2 Maccabees 14:41-43 teaches that Razias chose to die “nobly” by committing the “manful” act of suicide in the middle of a crowd: “41 Now as the multitude sought to rush into his house, and to break open the door, and to set fire to it, when he was ready to be taken, he struck himself with his sword: 42 Choosing to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of the wicked, and to suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth. 43 But whereas through haste he missed of giving himself a sure wound, and the crowd was breaking into the doors, he ran boldly to the wall, and manfully threw himself down to the crowd.”
Once again, the apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees is contradicting the Bible.
7. Witchcraft and Sorcery
In Tobit, chapter 6, verses 1-17 we read a very interesting story about a man named Tobias, and angel by the name of Azarias, murdering demons, and occultic practices.
In this story, Tobias goes down to the water to wash his feet, when a giant fish jumps up to devour him. The angel Azarias tells Tobias to grab the fish by the gills and bring it up on shore. Once Tobias has landed the fish, Azarias tells him to remove the fish's entrails, heart, gall bladder and liver as these are “necessary for useful medicines.” Tobias asks the angel what kind of medicines, and the angel then instructs Tobias on how to use the heart of the fish to cast a magical spell that will cast away demons.
Azarias the angel tells Tobias, “If thou put a little piece of its heart upon the coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.” The angel then provides Tobias with a bit of folk lore, telling him the gall will cure eye problems.
When Tobias asks Azarias where they are going to stay for the night, the angel tells him of a man named Raguel, who has a daughter named Sara, and that Tobias must marry Sara. Tobias is worried about this as he tells the angel that Sara has been married seven times already, and each time she is married, a demon who is also in love with her kills her husbands when they come in to her on their wedding night. Tobias is worried the same thing will happen to him.
Then the angel Raphael tells Tobias (perhaps Azarias has two names, or changes his name, or Raphael suddenly appears – we aren't told where Raphael comes from) to perform yet another magic spell. He tells Tobias, “when you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke. Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never return.” (Tobit 6:1-17 DRA, cf. RSVCE)
The Bible is very clear about the casting of spells and other occultic practices of witchcraft and sorcery as it repeatedly condemns them as sinful acts; and states those who practice these occultic acts will be condemned to hell for all eternity. (Deuteronomy 18:10–16; Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:27; Malachi 3:5; Acts 13:8–10; Revelation 18:23; 21:8; see also Revelation 22:15).
In spite of God's clear and repeated admonitions to stay away from such things, the apocrypha, in Tobit 6:1-17, not only condones occultism; but actually states that it is a heavenly being – and angel (or two angels) – who is teaching man to do them! This is not only a clear contradiction of God's Word, but blasphemous heresy as well!
8. The Men of Shechem
In the book of Judith, chapter 9, verses 2 through 9, we read that God enabled Simeon and his brothers to kill Shechem, his father Hamor, and the Hivite men. In short, this passage in Judith makes it clear that the murders of the Shechem, Hamor and the Hivite men was an act of God, and something to be commended.
In the biblical account, however, as found in Genesis 34, we plainly see God had nothing to do with the murders of the Hivites; and that it was an act of violence born out of anger, and was soundly condemned by God who cursed them for their violent sin (cf. Genesis 49:6-7).
On the one hand is the apocrypha commending this act of violence, and even laying the responsibility for it at the feet of God; and on the other hand is the Bible clearly teaching this same act was condemned by God. The book of Judith is in direct contradiction to the Bible, as well as blaspheming God by saying the act of wanton murder and deceit was by His hand.
9. Lying, Deceiving
In Judith, chapters 8 through 15, we read the story of Judith, who seeks the Lord in prayer and asks Him to help her deceive the Assyrians, in order to allow the Israelites to massacre them. In the apocryphal story, the Lord hears and answers her prayer. She then dresses up, puts on her make up and jewels, and makes herself look absolutely gorgeous. She proceeds to the Assyrian camp, and employing as much guile as she is able, begins her campaign of deceit and lies. The results in her getting the Assyrian king drunk, whereupon she then beheads him with a few well placed swings of a sword.
While this sounds like an exciting story (and it is), it also completely contradictory to Scripture. The Bible makes it clear as early on as Exodus 20, in the Ten Commandments, how God feels about lying: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”(Ex.20:16 NKJV).
In Proverbs 6:16-19, we read of seven things the Lord hates and which are an abomination to Him. The second item on this list is “a lying tongue,” which is followed up on the same list with “A heart that devises wicked plans,” and “a false witness who speaks lies.” Judith qualifies for all three of these. The Bible repeatedly teaches that those who lie are not in league with the Lord, but rather are lawless and counted with those who will be judged in the end (Colossians 3:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-11; Revelation 21:8). Simply put, God never lies, and it is impossible for Him to do so. (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Once again, the apocryphal book of Judith stands in direct contradiction to the Bible.
10. Baruch in Egypt
The Bible tells us, “Now in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month (which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, who served the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the house of the Lord and the king’s house; all the houses of Jerusalem, that is, all the houses of the great, he burned with fire.” (Jeremiah 52:12-13 – NKJV) We also read that when this happened, the prophet Jeremiah and Baruch were taken into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:6-7). This is the documented fact as presented in the Bible.
The Apocryphal book of Baruch, however, tells a similar but still different story. Baruch 1:1-2 states, “And these are the words of the book, which Baruch the son of Nerias, the son of Maasias, the son of Sedecias, the son of Sedei, the son of Helcias, wrote in Babylonia. In the fifth year, in the seventh day of the month, at the time that the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire.” (DRA)
The Bible states Baruch was in Egypt when Jerusalem was burned. The apocryphal book of Baruch states he was in Babylonia when Jerusalem was burned. Two different countries separated by almost nine hundred miles (measured as a straight line between the two). Both of these accounts can be wrong, but they cannot both be correct. Since we know the Book of Jeremiah is inspired by God, and therefore without error (as explained above), it is clear the book of Baruch is very much in error. This is not a mere scribal error, a typographical error, etc. No, it is a very serious error, which demonstrates the apocryphal book of Baruch not only is not inspired Scripture, but cannot be inspired Scripture.


Additional contradictions with universally accepted inspired Scripture:
Sirach 25:24 states sin had its beginning in woman, and because of her we all die.
Romans 5:12 states that sin came through one man, not a woman.
Sirach 25:35-36 states if a woman will not obey you, then divorce her.

Malachi 2:16 states that God hates divorce
Sirach 12:4-7 states we are to ignore sinners and not help them.
Proverbs 25:21 states we are feed our enemy if he is hungry and give him water if he is thirsty.


The Apocrypha Contains Obvious Historical Errors
In addition to containing contradictions to universally accepted inspired Scriptures, the apocrypha also contains obvious and indisputable historical errors. These include:

1. The King of Babylon
The Bible clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon (Daniel, chapters 1-4)
The apocryphal book of Judith, however, in chapter 1, verse 5, states Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, and that he ruled in Nineveh: “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” (Judith 1:5 DRA).
There are several serious historical errors contained in this one verse from Judith. First, Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the king of Assyria. Second, Nebuchadnezzar's capital, from where he reigned, was the city of Babylon, not Nineveh. Third, Nineveh was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, eight years before Nebuchadnezzar became king of the Babylonians. Fourth, Judith states Nebuchadnezzar's enemy was Arphaxad, the king of the Medes. However, the Medes never had a king by that name. The name Arphaxad appears only once in Scripture, in Genesis 10:22 where he is listed as a son of Shem, the son of Noah. Fifth, the kingdom of the Medes lasted until 550 B.C., long after Nebuchadnezzar's reign, when it was Cyrus, not Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Astyages, not Arphaxad.
Clearly, the apocryphal book of Judith is rife with error, as well as contradictory to the Bible. Some Roman Catholic apologists attempt to refute this by saying Judith is not a literal history, but is rather “a stylized account of real events,” and the historical inaccuracies are “due to the form of stylization the author employs.” They say it is similar to the book of Job, which they say nobody really accepts as literal truth. Other Roman Catholic apologists have attempted to explain away the historical errors by claiming Judith is really an “extended parable,” an “allegory,” and not actual history. They go on to say the Song of Solomon is not actual history, therefore, “If the Song of Solomon can go into the Bible, so can Judith.” And other Roman Catholic apologists will say Judith is a mix of historical and metaphorical terms (in other words, the parts that are historically accurate are considered history, and the historical inaccuracies are considered metaphors), while others will tell you the book of Judith is actually a metaphorical story about Mary, the mother of Jesus. When all of these arguments are refuted, some will merely dig in their heels and state defiantly that it doesn't matter if there are historical errors in Judith because there are historical errors in Daniel 1:1 (an argument that has been endlessly refuted by biblical scholars).
Clearly, there is no valid argument that can support the existence of such serious historical error as is found in the book of Judith. It is clearly not inspired by God, regardless of how desperately in need the Roman Catholic apologists are for it to be so.
2. The Length of the Babylonian Captivity
The apocryphal book of Baruch, chapter 6, verse 2, states, “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.”(DRA) This is a reference to the Babylonian captivity which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, occurred in 597 B.C. The biblical book of Jeremiah also references this same event: “And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:11 NKJV).
The problem is obvious. Baruch states the captivity would last 7 generations, while Jeremiah states it would last 70 years. To resolve this discrepancy we need to figure out what a biblical generation is in terms of length of time. Matthew 1:17 provides an answer, in that there were fourteen generations between the captivity and the birth of Christ in about 2 B.C., which gives us a difference of 595 years. Divide that by the fourteen generations, and we arrive at 42.5 years for a single generation. Multiply by 7, and we discover that according to the book of Baruch, the Babylonian captivity was 297.5 years long. That's an historical error of 227.5 years! Even if we cut that in half we have a 21.25 year generation, and a 148.75 year captivity, an historical error of 78.75 years.
Clearly, the apocryphal book of Baruch contains serious historical error.
Roman Catholic apologists attempt to explain away this historical error by first saying Baruch included all of the exiles the Israelites went through, which is clearly not meant in the text. Then they attempt to explain it away by saying the 7 generation number provided in Baruch is merely a “symbolic number.”
Obviously, the argument made by the Roman Catholic apologists simply has no merit, and they are unable to explain away the fact that the apocryphal book of Baruch contains serious historical error, which removes any possibility of inspiration.
3. Haman and King Ahasuerus

The apocryphal addition to the book of Esther begin at Esther 10:4, and continue to Esther 16:24. What is interesting in the apocryphal addition is, that the apocryphal chapters 14-16, are essentially a retelling of chapters 8-9. The problem with the apocryphal retelling is that it contains historical errors that are contradictory to the inspired chapters 8-9.
The first historical error/contradiction concerns the king of Persia to whom Esther is married. In Esther 8-9 (which are universally accepted Scripture), the author correctly identifies the king of Persia as Ahasuerus (Assuerus in the DRA), who is also known as king Xerxes. Ahasuerus reigned from 486 B.C. until his death in 425 B.C. In the apocryphal addition to Esther, however, the author (who is clearly not the same author who wrote 1:1-10:3) falsely states the king of Persia as king Artaxerxes, who was actually the son of king Ahasuerus. Artaxerxes reigned from 465 B.C. (upon his father's death) until 425 B.C.

The second historical error/contradiction concerns Haman (Aman in the DRA); and it is quite a surprising error for the apocryphal writer to make. One that indicates a poor knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. In chapters 8-9, the author correctly identifies Haman as “...Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to annihilate them, and had cast Pur (that is, the lot), to consume them and destroy them.”(NKJV) In the apocryphal chapters 14-16, however, the writer incorrectly states, “I Aman the son of Amadathi, a Macedonian both in mind and country.”(DRA)
The reason this error is so surprising is that it relates directly to 1 Samuel 15:1-35; where we read about Saul and the Amalekites. Saul is commanded by God (through Samuel) to attack and kill all the Amalekites. Every man, woman, and child as well as all of their livestock. Before Saul attacks, he warns the Kenites (who lived among the Amalekites) and allows them to escape. Saul then compounds his sin of disobedience by sparing not only the choicest livestock, but he also spares the king of the Amalekites, a man named Agag, who was an ancestor of Haman. If Saul had been obedient, Agag would have had no descendants, and Haman would not have tried to kill all the Jews (including Queen Esther) living in Susa. It seems apparent the writer of the apocryphal addition to Esther was not aware of this obvious connection, nor its importance, and thus falsely wrote that Haman was a Macedonian rather than an Agagite. It is also apparent the writer had not read the book of Esther either, since he also wrote the wrong king's name as well.
These obvious historical errors, and contradictions to the inspired book of Esther, disqualify the apocryphal additions from the possibility of divine inspiration.


The Apocrypha Contradicts Itself
Not only do the apocryphal books contradict universally accepted inspired Scriptures, as well as contain serious historical errors, they actually contradict themselves. Contradictions within the apocrypha include:

1. The Age of Tobit

Tobit 1:1-6, reads, “1Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet,) 2When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth, 3But every day gave all he could get to his brethren his fellow captives, that were of his kindred. 4And when he was younger than any of the tribe of Nephtali, yet did he no childish thing in his work. 5Moreover when all went to the golden calves which Jeroboam king of Israel had made, he alone fled the company of all, 6And went to Jerusalem to the temple of the Lord, and there adored the Lord God of Israel, offering faithfully all his firstfruits, and his tithes,”(DRA)
In this passage we learn two things. First, that Tobias took part in the Assyrian captivity; and second, that during the reign of Jeroboam, when Jeroboam set up the golden calves to be worshiped, he went instead to the temple in Jerusalem to worship the Lord. According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Assyrian captivity occurred in 722 B.C. We also know, again according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, that Jeroboam died in 954 B.C. after a 22-year reign, which would have begun in 976 B.C. Using the dates provided by the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Tobias would have been at least 254 years old when Jeroboam began his reign. Yet Tobit 1:1-6 states that during the reign of Jeroboam, Tobias was “younger than any of the tribe of Nephtali,” and yet “did he no childish thing in his work”, implying that Tobias was still a child when Jeroboam reigned over Israel.
This is a clear error in the apocryphal book of Tobit. And it gets even stranger when we read in Tobit 14, verse 2, “And after he had lived a hundred and two years, he was buried honourably in Ninive.” This passage clearly contradicts Tobit 1:1-6. In just these two passages we see not only serious error, but a painfully clear contradiction as well, with at least a 152 year discrepancy in the age of Tobias!
As with the other books presented here, with the clear errors and contradictions, Tobit cannot possibly be considered to be inspired Scripture.
2. The Death of Antiochus Epiphanes
In 2 Maccabees 1:13-16 we read about Antiochus Epiphanes entering the temple of the goddess Nanaea, in the Persian province of Elymais. The passage reads, “13 For when the leader himself was in Persia, and with him a very great army, he fell in the temple of Nanea, being deceived by the counsel of the priests of Nanea. 14 For Antiochus, with his friends, came to the place as though he would marry her, and that he might receive great sums of money under the title of a dowry. 15 And when the priests of Nanea had set it forth, and he with a small company had entered into the compass of the temple, they shut the temple, 16 When Antiochus was come in: and opening a secret entrance of the temple, they cast stones and slew the leader, and them that were with him, and hewed them in pieces, and cutting off their heads they threw them forth.”(DRA)
As we can see, the temple priests had laid a trap for Antiochus and killed him and those with him by stoning them; after which the priests hacked them into pieces and cut off their heads. However, just eight short chapters later in 2 Maccabees 9:19-29, we read that Antiochus Epiphanes left Persia (which had to be somewhat difficult being dead, hacked to pieces, and beheaded), where he entered a different country and was “taken with a grievous disease” the Douay-Rheims states. The Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition calls is an “annoying illness,” and the Common English Bible refers to it as “falling ill, which created a serious situation.” The result of this illness, whatever it was, is that Antiochus died a lingering miserable death, somewhere in the mountains of this “strange country.”

We know the province of Elymais, and thus the temple of Nanaea, is near the coast of the Persian Gulf, and not in the mountains; plus the second passage tells us that Antiochus had actually left Persia. Therefore, these two accounts cannot be referring to the same place. What we are left with is one person, Antiochus Epiphanes, being stoned to death, then hacked into pieces and beheaded in Persia in one passage; and then dying a second time of a serious illness in a different country.

This is a gross contradiction within the same apocryphal book. Again, this clearly disqualifies the book of 2 Maccabees from any possibility of divine inspiration.


Regarding the numerous errors and contradictions found within the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, Roman Catholic apologists are never at a loss to provide an explanation for them. They will tell you the apocryphal writings are actually parables, or allegories, or analogies, and not actual historical records. They will tell you the writers simply took artistic license, which they claim is perfectly acceptable within inspired Scripture. They will tell you historical facts are not important when determining if a book or letter is divinely inspired. And, they will tell you the writers simply didn't know they were writing under the inspiration of God, therefore any errors or contradictions they may make are acceptable and in no way effect their inspiration. This is known as grasping at straws.

The Apocrypha, while useful as history, contains numerous errors and passages that are contrary to established Scripture. This fact alone warrants exclusion from the inspired inerrant and infallible canon of Scripture. Coupled with the lack of substantive historical acceptance within the early church of the apocrypha as inspired; the apocryphal books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, but never as the inspired, inerrant, infallible and authoritative Word of God.



A Note on Canonicity
With regard to the canonicity, or more importantly the divine inspiration of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, there are several historically accepted parameters one must consider when determining whether or not they actually are inspired and worthy of acceptance as divinely inspired Scripture. This points include:
1. The apocryphal writings are never quoted by Jesus, the Apostles, nor any New Testament writer;
2. The apocryphal writings are never mentioned by name in the New Testament;
3. No New Testament writer ever refers to the apocryphal writings as authoritative;
4. The apocryphal writings were never accepted by the Jews as inspired Scripture;
5. The apocryphal writings do not contain any claim to divine inspiration (no “it is written,: or “Thus saith the Lord” in conjunction with a new prophecy, command, or revelation;
6. The apocryphal writings contain demonstrable errors. Errors indicate fallibility, which is antithetical to the character of God;
7. The apocryphal writings contain no objective evidence of Divine authority; i.e. no predictive prophecy, no firsthand accounts of miracles, etc. If God did inspire the apocrypha, then we would expect to see some internal evidence confirming it.
8. None of the apocryphal books or writings claim Divine authority, in fact, two of them, 2 Maccabees and Sirach, tells us they are not inspired Scripture, but rather abridged or abbreviated versions of works written by someone else as in 2 Maccabees, wherein they “did their best.” And asking the reader to be indulgent of the mistakes they made, while admitting they were not accurate as in Sirach. Note here:
2 Maccabees 2:19-28; 15:38-39 (RSVCE)
“19 The story of Judas Maccabe′us and his brothers, and the purification of the great temple, and the dedication of the altar, 20 and further the wars against Anti′ochus Epiph′anes and his son Eu′pator, 21 and the appearances which came from heaven to those who strove zealously on behalf of Judaism, so that though few in number they seized the whole land and pursued the barbarian hordes, 22 and recovered the temple famous throughout the world and freed the city and restored the laws that were about to be abolished, while the Lord with great kindness became gracious to them— 23 all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyre′ne in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book.
24 For considering the flood of numbers involved and the difficulty there is for those who wish to enter upon the narratives of history because of the mass of material, 25 we have aimed to please those who wish to read, to make it easy for those who are inclined to memorize, and to profit all readers. 26 For us who have undertaken the toil of abbreviating, it is no light matter but calls for sweat and loss of sleep, 27 just as it is not easy for one who prepares a banquet and seeks the benefit of others. However, to secure the gratitude of many we will gladly endure the uncomfortable toil, 28 leaving the responsibility for exact details to the compiler, while devoting our effort to arriving at the outlines of the condensation.”
“38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. 39 For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end.”
Sirach Prologue, Sirach 1 (RSVCE)
“Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law and the prophets and the others that followed them, on account of which we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom; and since it is necessary not only that the readers themselves should acquire understanding but also that those who love learning should be able to help the outsiders by both speaking and writing, my grandfather Jesus, after devoting himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, and after acquiring considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law. You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.”


The apocryphal writings are clearly not Divinely inspired Scripture; nor were they ever intended to be. The simple fact that they contain so many errors and contradictions precludes any possibility of Divine inspiration; and if one insists on taking the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as Divinely inspired, – errors and contradictions included – then one must also believe that God is not infallible, and capable of making mistakes.

The apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings are historical writings written by fallible humans, and nothing more. They are good to read, they are interesting, and even exciting in some places. But when it comes down to the reality of the matter, they simply are not Divinely inspired Scripture.


As the Westminster Confession states, “The books commonly called the Apocrypha … [are note] to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” (Westminster Confession 1:3).

Do Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament Writers Quote from the Apocrypha?
Note: Unless otherwise noted, all references to the apocrypha / deuterocanonical books throughout this series, have been taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899 American Edition Version (DRA). The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the Catholic seminary English College, Douai, France. It is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based. It is in the public domain. All other biblical references used in this series are from the New King James Version® (NKJV), Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Roman Catholics insist the Apocrypha (which they refer to as the deuterocanonical books – the term literally means “second canon.”) is part of the inspired Scriptures, and that it always has been. They present several common arguments in an attempt to prove their point. These common arguments include:
1. The New Testament refers to the Apocrypha numerous times;
2. The early church accepted the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha, as part of the inspired canon of Scripture
3. The Roman Catholic Church Discerned the Canon of Scripture Under The Power of The Holy Spirit
In this series of articles, I will attempt to answer and refute each of these arguments. The fourth and final installment of this series features a response to a Roman Catholic's apologist concerning the book, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Rev. Henry Graham; as well as an alphabetical list of all research sources used in the preparation of this series. And now, here is part one:

In part one of this series, we'll look at the claim that the New Testament quotes the Apocrypha numerous times. In discussions with Roman Catholic apologists (both professional and lay apologists), especially in online discussions, they will invariably point to a list of alleged occurrences of the Apocrypha in the New Testament, and in almost every instance they will copy and paste from a list of these alleged occurrences compiled by well-known Roman Catholic apologist, John Salza, which he has titled Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament. Sadly, not one of the Roman Catholics who has copied and pasted segments of Mr. Salza's list has apparently actually checked Mr. Salza's reliability with regard to this list. If they had just done the research themselves, rather than blindly trusting Mr. Salza's list they would likely have not used it to prove their point. At least I like to think they wouldn't.

I have personally gone through each and every one of the alleged occurrences noted by Mr. Salza. Researched each and every one of them thoroughly, and with an open mind, fully prepared to go where ever the evidence takes me. Fully prepared to accept the Apocrypha as inspired canon if, and only if, the evidence definitively proves that it is, starting with Mr. Salza's list, which I have posted, along with the Scriptural evidence for each one, below.

1. “Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.”
When read in the context of the entire chapter, Wisdom 11:7 is clearly seen as a reference to Exodus 1:16,22; and the Egyptian Pharaoh ordering the murder of newborn male babies. Of course, this gruesome action of Pharaoh is a foreshadowing of Herod's murder of all infants two years old and younger during the time of Jesus' birth, however, Wisdom 11:7 cannot in anyway be construed as a prophesy of Herod killing the children in Israel.

2. “Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.”

Matthew 6:19-20 states, “19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.” (NKJV) The teaching of Jesus here is clear: Do not lay up possessions here on earth, because in the end, they will not last; but rather, obey the Lord's commands and in doing so, you will have rewards in heaven. Sirach 29:11 states, “But yet towards the poor be thou more hearty, and delay not to shew him mercy.” (DRA) It says nothing about “lay up your treasure” as Mr. Salza claims. In fact, there is nothing about “lay up your treasure” anywhere in the entire chapter of Sirach 29.
3. “Matt. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.”
Mr. Salza apparently did not proof-read his list, as Tobit 4:15 actually states, “15 If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all.”(DRA) Perhaps what he meant was Tobit 4:16, which states, “16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.” This verse, like Matthew 7:12 (and others) is known as the “Golden Rule,” or the Law of Reciprocity, and is stated positively numerous times in the Old Testament, as noted by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”(NKJV)
It is most notably presented in Leviticus 19:18,34 which states, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. … The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” In other words, treat others as you would treat yourself. It is this principle that Jesus draws from in Matthew 7:12; and also from where the Tobit passage draws from. Jesus did not, however, quote from or draw from Tobit.
4. “Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.”

Matthew 7:16-20 states, “16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
Sirach 27:6-7 (I've had to correct Mr. Salza's mistake again, and add verse 7) states, “6 The furnace trieth the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction just men. 7 Be the dressing of a tree sheweth the fruit thereof, so a word out of the thought of the heart of man.”
As can be seen, the former does not actually follow the latter. The universal truism that a persons behavior is dictated by his inner beliefs, which Jesus has drawn upon for His illustration, can be found among many beliefs systems, including throughout the Old Testament. Proverbs 4:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Jon 15:35, Psalm 7:14; Isaiah 59:4; and many others all speak to this truism. There is little, if any, doubt that Jesus drew upon the numerous Old Testament passages that teach this truism, just as the author of Sirach did. In reading Mr. Salza's (corrected) references, it is clear they are at best vaguely similar, but cannot be said to follow one another.
5. “Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.”

Matthew 9:36 reads, “36 But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.” And Judith 11:15 (not verse 19 as Mr. Salza referenced) reads, “15 And he will tell me when he will repay them for their sins, and I will come and tell thee, so that I may bring thee through the midst of Jerusalem, and thou shalt have all the people of Israel, as sheep that have no shepherd, and there shall not so much as one dog bark against thee:”
Mr. Salza's implied claim is that Matthew 9:36 is somehow drawn from Judith 11:15; or, at least the phrase, “like sheep without a shepherd.” A quick look at the Scriptures, however, reveals that phrase, and the context within which that phrase (an accusation against the Jewish religious leaders who have failed the people), is found in numerous places in the Old Testament, such as Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Ezekiel 34:1-6; and Jeremiah 23:1-6. Matthew 9:36 is drawn from these passages, and not from Judith 11:15 (or Judith 11:19 for that matter.)


6. “Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.”
Tobit 7:18 reads, “18 And Raguel called to him Anna his wife, and bade her prepare another chamber.” Not only does the phrase “Lord of heaven and earth” NOT appear in Tobit 7:18, it does not appear anywhere in the entire chapter of Tobit 7!
7. “Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.”

Matthew 12:42 reads, “The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.”
The context of this passage clearly indicates Jesus was referring to the wisdom possessed by King Solomon, and not the apocryphal book “Wisdom of Solomon.”


8. “Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.”
These two verses have nothing whatsoever in common. Matthew 16:18 states: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” and Wisdom 16:13 states: “You have power over life and death; you can bring a person to the brink of death and back again.” Clearly, the Matthew passage says nothing about the power of death, and Wisdom passage says nothing about the gates of Hades. While the Wisdom passage is referring to the Israelites wanderings in the wilderness, the Matthew passage is referring to the permanence of the Church. They are totally unrelated.


9. “Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.”

Tobit 3 presents the story of a woman who had seven husbands who died as a factual event; whereas in the gospels, the writers, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are recording an incident where a group of Sadducees were presenting what was obviously a hypothetical situation in an attempt to trap Jesus. If the Sadducees were presenting Jesus with an historical event, they would have presented it as such, and not as a hypothetical story. Their use of a hypothetical story that happens to be vaguely similar to the events in Tobit 3, does not indicate the Sadducees even knew about Tobit (or the apocrypha) and even less that they were indicating Tobit was canonical. To say the Gospel writers were referring to the canonicity of Tobit requires stretching credulity beyond its limits.


10. “Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.”
The passages in 1 & 2 Maccabees refer to an historical event that had already taken place. The Matthew passage, however, refers to a future event that had not yet taken place, as the context clearly shows. They do not refer to the same event, and therefore Jesus is not quoting the Maccabees passages.

11. “Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.”

Again, the Maccabees passage is referring to an historical event that had already taken place, while the Matthew passage refers to a future event that has yet to occur. Two different events separated by thousands of years. Again, the Matthew passage is not taken from the Maccabees passage.


12. “Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.”
These are two completely different events that have nothing in common, including the language. The Wisdom 2:18 passage refers to unrighteous people (plural) planning to attack the righteous people (plural), and the unrighteous say, “If the righteous really are God's children, God will save them from their enemies.” The Matthew passage refers to the crucifixion of Jesus (a solitary individual), and the Chief Priests, Scribes and elders say “He (singular) saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Clearly, these two very different passages have nothing in common.


13. “Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.”
Once again, these are two very different scenarios and lessons that have nothing in common whatsoever. The Sirach passage, properly taken in context (verses 12-17) refers to the temporariness of gain achieved through dishonest, wicked or ungodly methods; and the permanence of that which is achieved through loyalty, honesty, kindness and charity. It is dealing with human interactions with one another. The Mark passage, however, refers to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and the eternal salvation of those who accept Christ compared to the temporary spirituality of those who reject Him.


14. “Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.”
Actually, the Mark passage, and also the Judith passage (written in the late 2nd century or early 1st century B.C.) as well, references Isaiah 66:24 (which was written approximately 600 years before Judith, and approximately 100 years before Jesus quoted it). Both Mark, and Judith, are referencing Isaiah.


15. “Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.”
Elizabeth, in the Luke passage tells Mary, “Blessed are you among women.” She did not say that Mary was blessed “above all women,” just blessed “among” women. This is quite different from Uzziah stating that Judith was blessed “more than any other woman on earth.” Mr. Salza has failed to notice an obvious difference between these two passages, namely that Mary is simply blessed among women, while Judith is blessed “more” than “any other woman on earth.” Apparently Judith received a far greater blessing than Mary did if one were to accept the apocryphal book of Judith as canonical as the Roman Catholics do, which calls into question the veneration Roman Catholics have for Mary, but not Judith. Mr. Salza has also (once again) failed to reference the correct verse, as it is not Judith 13:18 in which Judith is blessed above all women on earth, but verse 23, which reads, “And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth.” It should also be noted that while Mary was blessed among women because she would be bearing the unborn Christ; Judith was blessed above all women because she chopped off a man's head.


16. “Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.”
The context of these two passages reveal different meanings entirely. While in Luke 1:52 Mary is praising the Lord and reciting His magnificent works including overthrowing mighty rulers and exalting the lowly and humble; the Sirach passage, which reads, “14 The beginning of the pride of man, is to fall off from God” (DRA), refers to pride and how it leads to destruction, including causing the Lord to remove prideful rulers and replacing them with humble rulers. Clearly then, the Sirach passage is expounding on Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall.” (DRA), which was written 700 years before Sirach.

17. “Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.”

Actually Tobit 11 tells the story of Tobias blind father, who has his sight restored when Tobias smears a magic formula made of fish gall on his eyes. In the entire chapter, however, no one declares he is ready to die. In fact, when the story is read in its entirety, one soon sees that Tobias believed if he took the heart and liver of the fish and burned it, that would drive away the evil spirits that caused blindness. The story of Tobias curing his father's blindness by following a form of sorcery and a magic spell is antithetical to God's people, and to equate it somehow with the birth of Christ is nothing short of blasphemous.
18. “Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.”

Again, these two passages refer to two very different events. The Baruch passage refers to the Jew's who have been dispersed throughout the world returning to Jerusalem; and the Luke passage refers to those who have come to Christ for salvation around the world, all coming together, from all points in the world, in heaven where they will live forever.
19. “Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.”

Mr. Salza should have noted Sirach 28:22, and not verse 18 which says nothing about a sword. Verse 22 reads, “22 Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have perished by their own tongue.” This is a proverb, not a recounting of an actual event. Luke 21:24, however, is a prophecy of a future event, the destruction of Jerusalem. Trying to make a connection between the New Testament and the apocrypha by noting the use of a common ambiguous phrase such as “fall by the edge of the sword” is at best, a stretch, especially when the Old Testament is full of similar “sword” phrases, such as in Jer. 42:16;44:12,13,27; Num. 14:43; Job 15:22; Ezek. 17:21; 21:12; 23:25; 24:21; 26:6,8,11; 28:23; 29:8; 30:4-6; 32:12,20; 33:27; 35:8; Dan. 11:33; Hos. 7:16; 13:16; Amos 7:17; 9:10.
20. “Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.”

Luke 24:4 describes two angels “in shining garments” standing by at Jesus' tomb after His resurrection, and Acts 1:10 describes two angels “in white apparel” standing by at the bodily ascension of Jesus. 2 Maccabees 3:26, however, describes “two other young men beautiful and strong, bright and glorious, and in comely apparel” who were busy whipping a man to death. There is nothing in Luke 24 or Acts 1 that reminds us of 2 Maccabees 3:26.
21. “John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.”

Actually, Wisdom 9:1 is referencing Genesis 1:3-29; Psalm 33:9; Psalm 148:5; and Lamentations 3:37 (among other passages) which tell us about God speaking creation into existence. The writer of Wisdom would not have known of Jesus, especially as the God the Son, through whom all things were created.
22. “John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.”

John 3:13 is a direct reference to Jesus Christ. Baruch 3:29 is not. In fact, when read in its proper context (Baruch 3:26-33), it quickly becomes clear the subject is wisdom, and the passage is drawn from numerous Old Testament passages. Baruch 3:29, and its companion verse, 30, are rhetorical questions: “29 Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? 30 Who hath passed over the sea, and found her, and brought her preferably to chosen gold?” And when taken in context (again verses 26-33), the answer is that no one on earth has done these things as they do not possess wisdom.
Mr. Salza has taken passages out of their proper context in an attempt, and a poor attempt at that, to try and fit them together in such a way as to make a connection between them. When they are properly read, however, his argument quickly falls apart.
23. “John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.”

In each of the above listed New Testament passages, the “signs and wonders” were actually done by actual people. There were something that was seen, was witnessed by people. Wisdom 8:8, however, is something else entirely. “8 And if a man desire much knowledge: she knoweth things past, and judgeth of things to come: she knoweth the subtilties of speeches, and the solutions of arguments: she knoweth signs and wonders before they be done, and the events of times and ages.” (Wisdom 8:8 DRA). The “she” spoken of in Wisdom 8:8, and indeed throughout chapter 8 as well as both preceding and succeeding chapters, is, in fact, the attribute of wisdom. Wisdom “knows” all these things, it is a sign of wisdom based knowledge, which is obviously not the same thing as the working of an actual, physical signs and wonders as witnessed by many others as noted in the New Testament passages above. They do not “follow” Wisdom 8:8 anymore than a wheel barrow “follows” a race car. They both have wheels, but there the similarity ends.
24. “John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.”

In Wisdom 2:16, and indeed, the entirety of chapter 2, we see evil doers scheming to do evil to the just. One of the reasons for their hatred of the just, is their condemnation because of their sin and the refusal of the just to join them in their sin. The wicked then mock the just by saying the just “glorieth that he hath God for his father.”(DRA).
In John 5:18 we find a completely different scenario as the Jewish religious leaders scheme to kill Jesus because He specifically stated that He specifically was God's Son, thus making Himself equal with God.
In the Wisdom passage(s) there is a general hatred of all of the just and righteous people, and part of that hatred is they have God for their collective father. This is a common theme throughout the Old Testament, and found in such passages as Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4,19 ; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Ps. 68:5; and Psalm 89:26.
These two passages clearly speak on two entirely different and unrelated issues; and Just as clearly, John 5:18 does not “follow” Wisdom 2:16. In fact, if anything, Wisdom 2:16 follows the theme of God being the Father of His creation in the numerous Old Testament passages noted above.
25. “John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.”

In John 6:35-59, we find Jesus speaking in the synagogue, and the subject of His discourse is that He is “the bread which came down from heaven.”(NKJV) and that His body (which He referred to as the Bread) will be broken and His blood will be shed, and whoever partakes of His sacrifice will have eternal life.
Sirach 24:21 states, “21 And I perfumed my dwelling as storax, and galbanum, and onyx, and aloes, and as the frankincense not cut, and my odour is as the purest balm.”(DRA)
It is obvious that Sirach 24:21 does not foreshadow Jesus' words in John 6:35-59. Painfully obvious.
26. “John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

The Feast of Dedication was first instituted during the Intertestamental period, and was once known as the Feast of the Maccabees. Today it is known as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. It was a celebration that was commonly observed by the first century Jews, and had been since it was instituted. Therefore, the “identification of the feast of the dedication” as noted in John 10:22 is not taken from 1 Maccabees 4:59, but rather from the common knowledge and practice of the time period.
27. “John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.”

Let's take a look at these two verses:
“36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:36 NKJV)
“36 Then Judas, and his brethren said: Behold our enemies are discomfited: let us go up now to cleanse the holy places and to repair them.” (1 Maccabees 4:36 DRA)
Clearly, Jesus' statement in John 10:36 is a statement of fact, not an analogy of Hanukkah, nor the cleansing of the temple as noted in 1 Maccabees 4:36. Jesus is directly stating His deity, therefore, Mr. Salza's attempt to analogize the Lord's statement is akin to analogizing His deity. A heretical practice to say the least.
28. “John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.”

These two passages present two interesting teachings, although they do not refer necessarily to the same thing. In Wisdom 4:5, and indeed all of chapter 4, the writer is saying that while the righteous will thrive, the wicked will fall. The writer notes that both come from the same group of people, the same tree so to speak. Obviously he is talking about the Jews. While righteous Jews will thrive, wicked Jews who rebel against God will fall.
In John 15:6, however, Jesus is not talking about a race of people such as the Jews. He is talking about those who profess to follow Him. When the passage is read in context (John 15:1-8) this becomes very clear. What Jesus is teaching is, those whose professions of faith are true, the true believers, will produce good fruit. Not may produce good fruit, not could produce good fruit, but will produce good fruit. Those whose professions of faith were not real, the false believers if you will, cannot produce good fruit. Again He states this emphatically. Jesus also teaches that the “false believers” will be cast out, gathered up, and burned, as is described elsewhere in Scripture as being cast into the lake of fire.
Clearly then, John 15:6 does not follow Wisdom 4:5, as the two passages are speaking about two entirely different things. What makes the attempted connection between the two interesting, however, is that taking a group of writings such as the apocrypha, which contain numerous contradictions and obvious errors, and trying to pass off such an obviously fallible group of writings as inspired infallible Scripture, is a clear example of bad fruit.
29. “Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.”

Luke's reference to the 120 in Acts 1:15, refers to the number of disciples present at the choosing of Matthias to replace the traitor Judas after he committed suicide. 1 Maccabees 3:55 is a reference to the military captains appointed by Judas more than 100 years before the choosing of Matthias. There is no connection whatsoever between these two passages. Mr. Salza is grasping at straw in the wind with this one.
30. “Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.”

Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; and Galatian 2:6 all emphatically teach there is no partiality in God. This truth is just as emphatically taught in the Old Testament. For example, Deuteronomy 10:17 states, “17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.” (NKJV, see also 2 Chron. 19:7). In fact, impartiality is taken so seriously in the Old Testament, it is actually commanded (see Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16-17; Prov. 28:21; Ecc. 3:16-22). Being well versed in the Old Testament, it is not surprising that the Apostles Peter and Paul (and Jesus for that matter) continue that truth in the New Testament.
Sirach 35:12, on the other hand, states, “12 Give to the most High according to what he hath given to thee, and with a good eye do according to the ability of thy hands” (DRA). This verse refers to how an individual is to give to the Lord, and how to live; and it says nothing whatsoever about the impartiality of God. In fact, nowhere in Sirach chapter 35 is the impartiality of God spoken of.
Clearly, Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; and Galatian 2:6 do not reference anything in Sirach 35, much less verse 12 of that chapter.
31. “Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.”

Peter, just as all the Apostles, and also those who were listening to Peter's exhortation in Acts 17:29, would have been very familiar with the third commandment (Exodus 20:3-6) and also with the Lord's fuller explanation of it in Exodus 20:23, “23 You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.”(NKJV)
The exhortation to refrain from making false gods out of (among other things) gold and silver, can also be found in Deut. 29:17; Ps. 115:4; Ps. 135:15; Is. 2:20; Is. 30:22; Is. 40:19; Is. 41:7; Is. 44:10; Is. 46:6; Jer. 10:4; Dan. 5:4; Hab. 2:19.
Clearly, Wisdom 13:10 is following all of these Old Testament passages, just as Acts 17:29 is; rather than Acts 17:29 following Wisdom 13:10 – which it doesn't.
32. Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Romans 1;18-25 actually references Psalm 2:5, 12; 45:7; 75:8; 76:6-7; 78:49-51; 90:7-9; Isaiah 51:17; Psalm 81:11-12; Proverbs 1:23-31; Hosea 4:17. If anything, Wisdom 13:1-10 follows these numerous Old Testament passages just as Romans 1:18-25 does. Romans 1:18-25, however, does not follow Wisdom 13:1-10.
33. Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Romans 1:20 actually references Psalm 19-1-8; 94:9.

34. Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Romans 1:23 actually references Joshua 24:2; Exodus 20:3-5. cf. Isaiah 44:9-17; 2 Kings 17:13-16.


35. Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Romans 1:24-27 actually references Ezekiel 23:49; 1 Kings 14; Job 4:8; Proverbs 1:31-33; Hosea 8:7; Hosea 10:12.


36. Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Romans 4:17 actually references Genesis 17:4-5.

37. Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Romans 5;12 actually references Genesis 3:1-7; cf. Psalm 51:5, Genesis 2:17; Ezekiel 18:4.

38. Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

Romans 9:21 actually references Isaiah 64:6-8; Jeremiah 18:3-16. Paul possibly is alluding to Wisdom 15:7, but he has not quoted exactly, and alluding to an apocryphal passage is not the same as quoting that passage. Additionally, one must note that Wisdom 15:7 is following the teaching of the older Isaiah and Jeremiah passages, therefore, the Wisdom passage is not unique to the apocrypha. Therefore, this is not a definitive New Testament quote of the apocrypha.

39. 1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Corinthians 2:16 actually references Isaiah 40:13.


40. 1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
Actually, the 1 Corinthians passages reference numerous Old Testament passages, such as: Proverbs 23:20-21; Proverbs 25:16; Psalm 78:18; and Numbers 11:31-34. The Sirach passage do not mention gluttony at all: “Reward them that patiently wait for thee, that thy prophets may be found faithful: and hear the prayers of thy servants,” (Sirach 36:18), “28 The life of a man is in the number of his days: but the days of Israel are innumerable. 29 A wise man shall inherit honour among his people, and his name shall live for ever. 30 My son, prove thy soul in thy life: and if it be wicked, give it no power:” (Sirach 37:28-30)

41. 1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 actually references Psalm 82. Wisdom 13:3 has no connection to either 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, or Psalm 82, as it refers to those who are so beautiful they are mistakenly believed to be gods.

42. 1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Corinthians 10:1 actually references Exodus 13:21; 14:16. in fact, Wisdom 19:7 is a reference to this as well.
43. 1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

Paul is actually alluding to Deuteronomy 32:16-17; and the Baruch passage is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 32:16-17.

44. 1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

The 1 Corinthians passage is referring to baptizing for the dead, and the 2 Maccabees passage is talking about praying for the dead. These are two completely different things, so no 1 Cor. 15:29 is not a reference to 2 Macc. 12:43-45. Additionally, Paul would not have promoted the practice of praying for the dead, since doing so serves no useful purpose. Praying for the dead does not change the eternal destiny of someone who has died. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that after death we will face judgment. Once dead there is no second chance. And if someone is a true believer, then why pray for them at all when they die, as upon death, they immediately enter directly into the presence of the Lord (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8); and those who die in their sins, well, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . . The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him” (Ezekiel 18:20). It's as simple as that. Praying for dead people can do nothing to change their eternal destiny after they have died. The time to pray for people is before they pass away.
With regard to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is defending the doctrine of the resurrection, and he is doing so by pointing out the contradictory practices of a group of false teachers who perform baptisms for the dead, but they don't believe the dead will be resurrected. As Paul so masterfully points out, what is the point of practicing something that depends completely on the resurrection if there is no resurrection! Paul completely destroys their argument by pointing out the obvious fallacy of it. That this group was denying the resurrection is evidence they were not true believers (Romans 10:9-10; 1 John 2:18-4:6), and had infiltrated the Church, bringing their false teachings with them. Throughout 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is clearly not, by any means, condoning the practice of baptism for the dead.


45. Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Paul is asking for wisdom for others in Ephesians 1:17, while the passage in Wisdom 7:7 is asking for wisdom for self, and is a reference to 1 Kings 3:1-15 when Solomon asks the Lord for wisdom.


46. Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
47. Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Actually, the Wisdom passage is incorrectly noted by Mr. Salva. It should be Wisdom 5:17-24, not just verse 18; and it (Wisdom 5:17-24) is a reference to Isaiah 59:15-21. If anything, the Ephesians passage and the 1 Thessalonians passage allude to Isaiah 59:15-21; but they do not refer to or follow the Wisdom passage, but rather, the Wisdom passage follows the Isaiah passage.


48. 1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
This is at best, a very poor argument. The first passage from 2 Maccabees refers to God as the Lord of the world. This is a very commonly reference to God throughout the Old Testament. The second passage from 2 Maccabees refers to God as the King of kings. Again, numerous Old Testament passages refer to God as the sole sovereign King who is over all earthly kings. Paul's description in 1 Timothy 6:15 is not a quote from either of the 2 Maccabees passages. By using the same practice as used here by the Roman Catholic apologist, I could easily cobble together a group of passages from the Book of Mormon to prove the Pope quotes from it!


49. 2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Wisdom 5:16 doesn't say anything about a crown (this happens when people cut and paste without actually doing the research themselves). However, Wisdom 5:17 makes a reference to a “crown of beauty.” This is not the same thing as the “Crown of Righteousness” referred to by Paul in 2 Tim. 4:8. The closest reference to the crown of Wisdom 5:17, is the crown of beauty found in Isaiah 62:3, although the references are dissimilar. Possibly the writer of Wisdom was alluding to the older passage found in Isaiah; but Paul was clearly not alluding to or referencing the Wisdom passage.

50. Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

As with the previous verse, Wisdom 18:15 does not have anything to do with Hebrews 4:12, as the Wisdom verse does not mention a sword. What the Roman Catholic apologist meant to say (and isn't it ironic that a Protestant has to help the Roman Catholic apologist present his argument correctly?), is Wisdom 18:15-16, which states, “15 Thy almighty word leapt down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce conqueror into the midst of the land of destruction. 16 With a sharp sword carrying thy unfeigned commandment, and he stood and filled all things with death, and standing on the earth reached even to heaven.” As can be seen, however, the Hebrews passage does not say that God's word is a sword, but rather is sharper than any sword. The Wisdom passage, on the other hand, actually states the word was carrying a sword. These are two distinctly different passages, stating two distinctly different things. The only thing they have in common is that each of them mentions the word of God and a sword. There is nothing similar about them.

51. Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

The taking up of Enoch and Elijah are recorded in Genesis 5:21-24 (Enoch) and 2 Kings 2:1-13 (Elijah). Both Genesis and 2 Kings were written long, long, long before Wisdom and Sirach. Clearly then, the Wisdom and Sirach passages were copied from these older books; and, the writer of Hebrews was quoting from them as well.

52. Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Hebrews 11:35 refers to the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22 where Elijah prays and the child returns to life) and the woman of Shunern (2 Kings 4:34 where Elisha prays, and then lays on the child, and he returns to life). In both of these instances, the woman is not martyred, nor does she die at all; and, there is only one son returning to life. There is no similarity between the Hebrews passage and the 2 Maccabees passage which relates in gruesome detail the tortuous deaths of a single woman and her numerous sons. There is no mention of the sons or their mother being raised to life again.

53. Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

The reference to weak or drooping hands and weak knees actually comes from Isaiah 35:3, which states, “Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees.” It does not come from Sirach 25:23, which states, “And there is no anger above the anger of a woman. It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman.” which connects to nothing in Hebrews 12.

54. James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

The principle taught in James 1:19 is not only common sense, but commonly taught throughout the Old Testament (for example: Proverbs 10:19; 17:27; 16:32; Ecclesiastes 7:9). Sirach 5:11, however, is only remotely similar to these Old Testament passages: “Winnow not with every wind, and go not into every way: for so is every sinner proved by a double tongue.” (Sirach 5:11)


55. James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Actually, James 2:23 is a quote from Genesis 15:6, just as 1 Maccabees 2:52 is a loose quote from the same Genesis verse.

56. James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

The principle taught in James 3:13 is taught throughout the Old Testament (for example: Num 12:3; Deut 8:2,16; 2 Chron 7:14; 2 Chron 34:27; Job 22:29; Ps 9:12; 10:12,17; 34:2; 69:32; Ps 22:26; 25:9; 37:11; 76:9; 147:6; 149:4), and James would have been very familiar with it. It is not, however, taught in Sirach 3:17, which states, “And in justice thou shalt be built up, and in the day of affliction thou shalt be remembered: and thy sins shall melt away as the ice in the fair warm weather.”
57. James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

Although James 5:3 does speak about laying up treasure that corrodes, Sirach 29:10-11 does not: “10 Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause. 11 But yet towards the poor be thou more hearty, and delay not to shew him mercy.” (Sirach 29:10-11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
58. James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

The Old Testament contains numerous references to condemning and killing righteous and innocent people (practices the Lord condemns). For example, see: Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 27:25; Proverbs 17:15; Psalm 94:21; Leviticus 24:19-22; Proverbs 6:16-19. It is far more likely that James is drawing from these passages, as it is closer in context to them. The James passage, like the other Old Testament passages, condemns the practice; while in the Wisdom passage, the practice is being condoned by the ones speaking.

59. 1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:6-7 is drawn from numerous Old Testament passages that speak of the righteous having their faith tested and refined by fire. For example, see: Zechariah 13:9; Isaiah 48:10; Malachi 3:1-18; Job 23:10; Proverbs 17:3; Psalm 66:10-12; Psalm 66:10. Both the Wisdom and the Sirach passages are also drawn from these Old Testament passages. Additionally, there is no mention in any of these passages of purgatory; and that includes the Wisdom and Sirach passages. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is the doctrine of purgatory taught.
60. 1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Sirach 16:12 says nothing about God judging each one according to his deeds. Sirach 16:12 states, “12 For mercy and wrath are with him. He is mighty to forgive, and to pour out indignation” There is no connection between Sirach 16:12 and 1 Peter 1:17.
61. 2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

2 Peter 2:7 states, “ and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked.” This is drawn from Genesis 19. Wisdom 10:6, on the other hand, talks about some woman delivering a righteous man. It says nothing about God, or Lot, and is not a reference to God's deliverance of Lot from Sodom: “She delivered the just man who fled from the wicked that were perishing, when the fire came down upon Pentapolis” (Wisdom 10:6 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)


62. Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
The Angels and the seven spirits of Revelation 1:4, are two different things entirely. When John refers to the “seven angels” in Revelation, he always refers to them as “the seven angels,” and not as spirits (see Rev.8:2;16:1). The “Seven Spirits” which are at the throne of God, is a reference to the Holy Spirit of God. Note the description of the Spirit in Isaiah 11:2, where the Spirit is given seven titles: 1) The Spirit of the Lord, 2) the Spirit of Wisdom, 3) the Spirit of Understanding, 4) the Spirit of Counsel, 5) the Spirit of Might, 6) the Spirit of Knowledge, and 7) the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord. These are attributes or characteristics of the Holy Spirit. Revelation 1:4 is not taken from Tobit 12:15.

63. Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Revelation 1:18 describes Jesus Christ, and points out His victory over death and the grave (Hades). Matthew 16:18 states that hell itself cannot prevail over the Church. These two verses are not connected as they speak about two very different things. Wisdom 16:13 is not connected to either of these two verses, as it speaks of God having power over death: “For it is thou, O Lord, that hast power of life and death, and leadest down to the gates of death, and bringest back again” (Wisdom 16:13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). None of these verses “follow” each other. The Wisdom verse, however, does draw from numerous Old Testament passages, namely: Isaiah 25:8; Psalm 68:20; Psalm 16:10; and also: Joshua 2:13; Job 5:20; 10:21; 26:6; 30:23; 34:22; 38:17; Psalm 9:13; 33:19; 56:13; 68:20; Proverbs 10:2; 11:4; 18:21; 23:14; and Hosea 13:14.
64. Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Revelation 2:12 states that God possesses a two-edged sword. Wisdom 18:15-16 states the “almighty word” has a sword: “15 Thy almighty word leapt down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce conqueror into the midst of the land of destruction. 16 With a sharp sword carrying thy unfeigned commandment, and he stood and filled all things with death, and standing on the earth reached even to heaven.” These two verse are not similar. The only thing they have in common is the word “sword.” The sword of God is not, however, unique to Revelation 2:12, and can be found in the Old Testament. In fact, Ezekiel 21 contains numerous references to the sword of God. If anything, Revelation 2:12 is similar to Ezekiel 21, but not Wisdom 18:15-16.
65. Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

The description of God sitting on His throne is the same description used in Isaiah 6:1; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Psalm 47:8; 1 Kings 22:19; and Isaiah 40:22. It is not, therefore, exclusively the same as Sirach 1:8.
66. Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

These two passages actually describe two entirely different things happening. In Revelation 8:3-4, an angel offers incense with the prayers of the saints upon the golden alter before God. The “saints” referred to here are all true believers. In Tobit 12:12,15, an angel offers the prayers of pious Jews to the Lord personally. Since the Tobit angel only offers the prayers of certain Jews, while the Revelation angel offers the prayers of all true believers; and since the settings are completely different, as are the method of offering the prayers, it is clear these two passages do not follow one another.

67. Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

In Revelation 8:7, we see hail and fire raining down upon the earth together. In Wisdom 16:22, we see the land is already on fire, and the fire is not extinguished by falling hail. These are two entirely different things that have nothing in common with each other. Sirach 39:29, which states, “Even as he turned the waters into a dry land, and the earth was made dry: and his ways were made plain for their journey: so to sinners they are stumbling blocks in his wrath.”, has nothing whatsoever to do with either of the other two passages.

68. Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Revelation 9:3 refers to demonic creatures coming forth out of the abyss; and Wisdom 16:9 refers to actual locusts gathering together, presumably against the Egyptians prior to the exodus. In neither case are they “raining,” and these two passages are nothing alike. There is a big difference between demonic creatures from the abyss and grasshoppers.

69. Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

To begin with, the ark of the covenant is not Mary. Trying to make the ark a metaphor for Mary is simply changing the meaning of Scripture to fit whatever one wants it to fit. No, the ark of the covenant seen in the temple of God in Revelation 11:19 is the actual ark of the covenant. As for the alleged prophesy in 2 Maccabees 2:7, as can be seen, there is nothing in 2 Maccabees 2:7 that can be even remotely construed as relating to anything in Revelation 11:19, or even Mary for that matter: “And when Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them, saying: The place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people, and receive them to mercy.” (2 Maccabees 2:7 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
70. Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Revelation 17:14 is a reference to Jesus Christ, while 2 Maccabees 13:4 is a reference to God the Father. They are not the same person. Using the logic employed by the Roman Catholic apologist who prepared this list, it could also be said that 2 Maccabees 13:4 follows Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel 26:7; and Daniel 2:37, all of which use the title King of kings. Since Revelation 17:14 and 2 Maccabees 13:4 are referring to two different people, the one does not “follow” the other.

71. Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Revelation 19:1 states, “After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!” (Revelation 19:1 NKJV); and Tobit 13:18 states, “Blessed are all they that love thee, and that rejoice in thy peace.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). Clearly, the two verse have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

72. Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

First, let's examine these passages:
Revelation 19:11 (NKJV)
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
2 Maccabees 3:25 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
25 For there appeared to them a horse with a terrible rider upon him, adorned with a very rich covering: and he ran fiercely and struck Heliodorus with his fore feet, and he that sat upon him seemed to have armour of gold.
2 Maccabees 11:8 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition )
8 And when they were going forth together with a willing mind, there appeared at Jerusalem a horseman going before them in white clothing, with golden armour, shaking a spear.
In the Revelation passage we see Jesus Christ, seated upon a white horse, coming out of heaven. In the two passages from 2 Maccabees, we see an unnamed rider, seated upon a horse with no color given for the horse, and rather than coming out of heaven, this unnamed rider appears on earth, wearing white clothing and full armor and shaking a spear. Clearly then, Revelation 19:11 is completely different from the two passages from 2 Maccabees. The only thing they have in common is someone is sitting on a horse, a description that can be found in numerous places within the Old Testament.
73. Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Revelation 19:16 is a reference to Jesus Christ, while 2 Maccabees 13:4 is a reference to God the Father. They are not the same person. Using the logic employed by the Roman Catholic apologist who prepared this list, it could also be said that 2 Maccabees 13:4 follows Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel 26:7; and Daniel 2:37, all of which use the title King of kings. Since Revelation 19:16 and 2 Maccabees 13:4 are referring to two different people, the one does not “follow” the other.

74. Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Revelation 21:19 provides a description of the New Jerusalem, stating, “The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald,” (NKJV); while Tobit 13:17, the alleged prophecy, states, “But thou shalt rejoice in thy children, because they shall all be blessed, and shall be gathered together to the Lord.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). Clearly, the Tobit passage is not a prophecy of Revelation 21:19.

75. Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

Since Exodus 23:7 is far older than Daniel 13:53 (which is an addition to the actual book of Daniel), clearly it is Daniel 13:53 which follows Exodus 23:7, and not the other way around.

76. 1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

Since 1 Samuel 28:7-20 is far older than Sirach 46:20, clearly it is Sirach which follows 1 Samuel, and not the other way around.

77. 2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

Since 2 Kings 2:1-3 is far older than Sirach 48:9, clearly it is Sirach which follows 2 Kings, and not the other way around.
78. 2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the argument that Paul was referring to the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books in 2 Timothy 3:16. In fact, if he was referring to the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, then according to this Roman Catholic apologist argument, Paul must have also been referring to 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 – all of which are rejected as inspired Scripture by the Roman Catholic church, thus making the Roman Catholic church guilty of “removing” these books from the Bible, the same charge they level against Protestantism.

79. Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

This is incorrect. Protestants say these books are not inspired canon for several reasons. They are not quoted anywhere in the New Testament, they are not noted anywhere in the New Testament as being inspired; they were not accepted by the Jews as inspired; there is absolutely no evidence to support their inspiration, regardless of how the writers of Sirach and 2 Maccabees felt about themselves.


80. The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.
This anti-Protestant argument is based on a false premise. Following the logic of this argument, it could easily be said of any Roman Catholic who accepts the any of the canonical Old Testament books, since the same Jewish councils who reject the entire New Testament (as any good Jew will do, since they reject Jesus as the Messiah), also accept every book between Genesis and Malachi. And if they are “following” the decisions of these Jewish councils who reject the entire New Testament, then why aren't the Roman Catholics also rejecting the entire New Testament.


As can be seen from an examination of the quotations, references, allusions, etc., of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings that are alleged to be found in the New Testament, the fact of the matter is, not one of them passes muster. In other words, there are no apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings quoted, referred to, or alluded to in the New Testament. Not one. I will grant that there are several instances where the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings refer to the same Old Testament passages that some New Testament passages refer to, however, this does not mean the New Testament is actually referring to the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings as they are actually referring to the Old Testament. That the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings also refer to the same Old Testament passage only proves that Jews during the intertestamental period were aware of the accepted Old Testament canon, and they referred to in their own writings just as Jesus, the Apostles and others of the New Testament time period. That and nothing more. When Mr. Salza and others try to point to these concidental references and claim them as evidence the New Testament writers quoted, referred to or alluded to the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings is nothing more than hoping to make a case based on slim circumstantial evidence that is tenuous at best; and in some cases, as has been shown, evidence that is completely nonexistent.
According to the Blue Letter Bible website [https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt08.cfm], there 855 Old Testament quotations found within the New Testament. While the fact that the New Testament quotes from the Old does not prove the Old Testament is inspired Scripture, it does give strong evidence that Jesus and the Apostles considered it as such. In all of the 77 alleged occurrences of the apocrypha / deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, however, not one of them can be shown to be an actual occurrence of them in the New Testament. Not one. Again, this simple fact in and of itself does not indicate the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings are not inspired, but it does provide strong evidence that Jesus and Apostles, and indeed all of the New Testament writers did not consider them authoritative.
Many Roman Catholic apologists look to the alleged quotations and references to the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings in the New Testament, as evidence of their canonicity. However, if a spurious book is quoted in the accepted New Testament, or even a mere mention of a spurious book is in the New Testament, is evidence of canonicity; then the Roman Catholic church must also accept the Book of Jasher and the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture as well. The Book of Jasher is included in Paul's writings when he makes note of the sorcerers Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:8). The event Paul describes seems to follow Jasher 79:27 rather closely. And, the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9) is quoted almost verbatim in Jude 1:14-15. Of course, both Paul and Jude are merely confirming ancient events, while not confirming the credibility or the canonicity of Jasher and Enoch. But you can see the problem that arises when Roman Catholics attempt to use the mention, reference, or quotation of an apocryphal / deuterocanonical writing in the New Testament as evidence of canonicity.
The requirements for inclusion in the canon of sacred inspired Scripture will be discussed in more detail in parts two and three of this series. Suffice to say, the only possible conclusion one can come to at this point, and still remain honest to oneself, is that the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings were not quoted, referenced, nor even alluded to by Jesus, the Apostles, nor any of the New Testament writers.

Facebook comments posted to my article “Is The Apocrypha Inspired Scripture?” have proved to be interesting to say the least. Especially when two irate female "apologists," one Roman Catholic and the other a self-professed “Antiochian Orthodox” (the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, not to be confused with the Greek Orthodox church), decided to weigh in and refute my article. Remember now, that the initial article is an argument against the inspiration of the Apocrypha, that consists not simply of my opinion, but historical fact to support my premise. The arguments that were meant to refute my article, however, by and large have nothing whatsoever to do with my premise, nor even with the Apocrypha at all! I'll let you read them and save my comments for the end of this article.

I'll list the Antiochian apologists arguments first (20), followed by the Roman Catholic apologists arguments (13).

A. Arguments Made By The Antiochian Orthodox “Apologist” As A Refutation Against My Article:

1. “The original KJV had the apocrypha. And- those were original and people keep changing things and that is why there are now 40,000 protestant denominations with 60% who don't even believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit or Satan. Cafeteria Christians.”

2. (She then posted the following link) Survey Finds Most American Christians Are Actually Heretics

3. “Let's take Judaism- if Jesus was Jewish as people claim, then why do Jews say there's no heaven/hell or they say that heaven and hell are not actual locations. They also don't believe in original sin.”

4. “There's not even such a thing as "sola scriptura" unless a person lives in a cave, never reads Christian authors outside of the Bible, never listens to their pastors (authorities) and never read any evangelical theologians (more authorities).”

5. “Do you read Christian authors, scholars, theologians, go to a church, have a pastor? If so, you are not Sola Scriptura, sir. Therefore, please stop lying.”

6. “And the apostolic churches had councils- not just one guy like Luther or Calvin who came up with something on their own without any oversight or checks and balances.”

7. “The reason Luther said sola scriptura was not to be taken literally. It was because in his town, priests were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing. That is all. He didn't intend to dump the Catholic Church. He was a Catholic monk.”

8. “By a COUNCIL of BISHOPS of various nations beyond race, ethnicities, and politics. They were Holy men who transcended all of that. It wasn't just one person who decided by ego or politics. Phiippians 1:1 Paul addresses his BISHOPS, deacons, and saints. Because the twelve were the first bishops.”

9. “St. Mark started the church in Alexandria, Egypt. St. Peter started the church in Antioch and Rome, St. Andrew started the church in Greece, St. Thomas started churches in Africa and India, St. James started the church in Jerusalem- those were the first bishops and each have their own lineage of bishops who carried on the teachings up to this day. This is called apostolic succession.”

10. “Armenia was the first country to have Christiniaty as the official state religion in 301 AD which was 24 years before the Council at Nicea. Ethiopia was the second with Phillip starting the church there.”

11. “Why in the world do protestants who put down apostolic churches even have a Bible when WE ARE THE ONES who compiled the Bible in the first place? Who took the papyri fragments, put them in order, put verse numbers on them, titled the books in the Bible?”

12. “I wish people who degrade the ancient churches would just throw their Bibles away. If not, they're being hypocrites.”

13. “Where did "The Bible" come from Robert Tuttle? Do you think that there were printing presses and everyone carried a Bible around in the early centuries? No one even OWNED a Bible. There was only oral tradition and the priests are the ones who taught people scripture. There were very few copies and only a few in each church. It's not like people could even read half the time. There were also illiterate people. Scripture was handed down through teaching, sermons, hymns, and prayers.”

14. “It cost an entire year's salary just to have one gospel copied because they had to hire scribes to do that. Then, they had to hire checkers to check and proofread the work of the scribes. Paper wasn't even invented. The process of taking reeds of papyrus plants and drying them and turning them into paper was a very long and laborious process. They also had to make ink. Or vellum which was made from the intestines of animals. They used that too.”

15. “And the liturgy was all part of the early Christians. Even evangelical websites mention that Liturgy, communion, baptism was very important.”

16. “Exodus mentions the statues they had in the temple with cherubim, seraphim, and palm trees. The temple did have statues. I'm Orthodox, so we dont' have statues but it's clear there were images even in the Jewish temples. The Dura Europa Synagogue-the oldest synagogue in existence in Syria has murals. Exodus also mentions what the priests wore. It goes into great detail about their robes, what fabric was used and so forth.”

17. “Jesus was a Jewish priest, Robert. the apostles also followed the steps.”

18. “Protestants don't even have a canon, do they? This is why you have people who don't even think the Holy Spirit exists and that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. smh”

19. “Where in Scipture does it say to have rock bands and rock concert lights and tele-evangelists? That's not sola scriptura, is it? There is no such thing as "sola scriptura." There are ancient theologians during the time of the apostles and there are modern ones which you follow. and no need for charities or deeds- that is not biblical at all. It is very clear in James that "Faith without works are dead." And it's clear by early pagan writings that Christians were involved in charities. This is what set them apart from any other.”

20. “Protestants are the ones who started Atlantic Slave Trade and invasions all over the place. They're the ones who killed millions of Catholics and Orthodox and they're the ones who control the world with U.S. and the European Constitutional monarchies. British enslaved Irish Catholics also. Where do you think the term "white trash" comes from? The biggest mass lynching in the U.S. were Italians in New Orleans. Why has the U.S. only had one Catholic president JFK- and look what happened to him? Orthodox and Catholics have Black saints. Do protestants? no.”

B. Arguments Made By The Roman Catholic “Apologist” As A Refutation Against My Article:
1. “who are YOU to decide differently? Who was Martin Luther to decide differently? What was considered Cannon was determined by councils like the council of Jerusalem not individuals. You have no say in the matter of what is or is not inspired scripture. You have no more authority to decide than Mormons who decided that the Book of Mormon is inspired.”

2. “I ask you again. Who are YOU to decided what is inspired and what isn't? The church decided in COUNCILS. What was determined inspired was NEVER by individuals. THIS is how things were decided.” (she then posted a link to Acts chapter 15 on the Bible Gateway website).

3. “The Church always decided things with councils not by individuals. This is our problem. You can not accept what the developing church decided.”

4. “The early church didn't even have a New Testament Robert.”

5. “Well, you are doing the same thing Martin Luther did by telling us what belongs or doesn't belong in scripture Robert. We are just telling you you have no authority to tell us what belongs in scripture and what doesn't. The CHURCH decided.”

6. “Jesus said "Upon this Rock I will BUILD my church". He intended to build it over time not in the first 3 centuries.”

7. “Robert. You have no authority to decide what is inspired and what isn't inspired or what books belong or don't belong in scripture . I don't either. THE CHURCH which the bible calls the PILLAR FOUNDATION OF TRUTH has already decided. 1 Timothy 3:15 'But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.'”

8. “AND, Stained Glass Windows and Statues to tell the stories of the bible and early Christianity because most Christians were illiterate before this century. You can thank the Catholic Church for preserving your bible for you Robert Tuttle or you wouldn't have one.”

9. “Bible's up until the printing press 1440 (which is the reason the bible spread to individuals) were like owning the hope diamond. They were EXPENSIVE and RARE. No one was trying to keep them from anyone, they were just hand-copied on papyrus. No one could afford one.”

10. “You think Jesus really meant to DUMP all of Judaism Robert?”

11. “You are ignoring Jesus.”

12. “We are posting INFORMATION that you clearly do not want to consider Robert. We are having a DISCUSSION which you clearly do not want to have with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Deaf ears.”

13. “Later Robert. You aren't interested in what anyone has to say besides yourself. That is what I have found about most protestants. It's all about ME not Jesus. You only care about your own thoughts. You have proven that over and over in these discussions. You like to hear yourself.”



Now please bear in mind that these comments were posted rapid fire, with virtually no response from me (not that I could get a word in edgewise had I felt inclined to try). I will not insult Roman Catholics or Antiochian Orthodox followers by stating or insinuating that all Roman Catholics or Antiochian Orthodox followers are as off-the-wall as these two ladies. I don't believe they are. But this does, I think, illustrate the denialism that exists within these two groups among some of their members.

Several years ago I engaged in a debate with a fellow, who, after the 16 hour debate stated, “You know Bob, you present a pretty convincing argument. You really know your stuff. But I have to say, I don't care what the truth is, I know what I believe.”
“I don't care what the truth is, I know what I believe.” I think if this fellow were to start his own religion, these two ladies would be among the first to sign up.

Roman Catholics insist the Apocrypha (which they refer to as the deuterocanonical books – the term literally means “second canon.”) is part of the inspired Scriptures, and that it always has been. They present several arguments to prove their point, the two most common are 1) the New Testament refers to the Apocrypha, and 2) the early church taught and believed the Apocrypha was part of the established and inspired canon of Scripture. Let's examine these two arguments in more detail.
In an online discussion with a Roman Catholic, he made the argument that since the Apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament, it is clearly part of the canon. He then presented 18 “examples” of alleged references to the Apocrypha in the New Testament which had apparently been copied from a Roman Catholic apologetic website which contained many more so-called examples. In order to give my Roman Catholic friend the benefit of the doubt, I read each presented passage from the New Testament, and each presented passage from the Apocrypha, in the context of the surrounding passages.

Here is that list, as presented by my Roman Catholic friend, with my comments following each passage:

1. “Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.”

The Wisdom passage refers to the enemies of Israel killing their own children. This is not a prophesy of Herod killing the children in Israel.


2. “Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.”
The Sirach passage refers to being generous with your money, and using it to help the poor. There is no real comparison to Jesus' teaching in the Matthew passage.


3. “Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.”
The Golden Rule, also known as the Law of Reciprocity, is found in almost every religious belief system. If you are going to link Matt. 7:12 to Tobit 4:15, then you also have to link it to just about every other religious belief system.


4. “Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.”
Again, this is a universal truism recognized by many different religious belief systems; and is not necessarily a connection between Jesus and apocrypha.


5. “Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.”
The context of these two verses shows they are not the same thing. In Matthew, Jesus is referring to those who are spiritually lost; while the Judith passage refers to a military attack against the Israelites.


6. “Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.”
The phrase “Lord of Heaven” is used numerous times in numerous texts, both biblical and non-biblical. For instance, it appears in Deuteronomy 10:14, which was written approximately 700 years before Tobit, therefore, there is more of a connection between Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25 and Deuteronomy 10:14, then there is between Matthew 11:25 and Tobit 7:18.


7. “Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.”
The context of this passage clearly indicates Jesus was referring to the wisdom possessed by King Solomon, and not the apocryphal book “Wisdom of Solomon.”


8. “Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.”
These two verses have nothing whatsoever in common. Matthew 16:18 states: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” and Wisdom 16:13 states: “You have power over life and death; you can bring a person to the brink of death and back again.” Clearly, the Matthew passage says nothing about the power of death, and Wisdom passage says nothing about the gates of Hades. While the Wisdom passage is referring to the Israelites wanderings in the wilderness, the Matthew passage is referring to the permanence of the Church. They are totally unrelated.


9. “Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.”
While the two stories are similar, Tobit presents the story as a factual event; whereas in the gospels, the context indicates the Pharisees are presenting a hypothetical situation in an attempt to trap Jesus. If the Pharisees were presenting Jesus with an historical event, they more than likely would have used the actual names “Sarah” and “Raguel.” There is little doubt the Pharisees were acquainted with the Book of Tobit, but their use of a similar story indicates they did not take it as Scripture. Therefore, the Gospel writers were not referring to the canonicity of Tobit.


10. “Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.”
The passages in 1 & 2 Maccabees refer to an historical event that had already taken place. The Matthew passage, however, refers to a future event that had not yet taken place, as the context clearly shows. They do not refer to the same event, and therefore Jesus is not quoting the Maccabees passages.


11. “Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.”
Again, the Maccabees passage is referring to an historical event that had already taken place, while the Matthew passage refers to a future event that has yet to occur. Two different events separated by thousands of years. Therefore, the Matthew passage is not taken from the Maccabees passage.


12. “Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.”
These are two completely different events that have nothing in common, including the language. The Wisdom 2:18 passage refers to unrighteous people (plural) planning to attack the righteous people (plural), and the unrighteous say, “If the righteous really are God's children, God will save them from their enemies.” The Matthew passage refers to the crucifixion of Jesus (a solitary individual), and the Chief Priests, Scribes and elders say “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Clearly, these two very different passages have nothing in common.


13. “Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.”
Once again, these are two very different scenarios and lessons that have nothing in common whatsoever. The Sirach passage, properly taken in context (verses 12-17) refers to the temporariness of gain achieved through dishonest, wicked or ungodly methods; and the permanence of that which is achieved through loyalty, honesty, kindness and charity. It is dealing with human interactions with one another. The Mark passage, however, refers to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and the eternal salvation of those who accept Christ compared to the temporary spirituality of those who reject Him.


14. “Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.”
Actually, the Mark passage, and also the Judith passage (written in the late 2nd century or early 1st century B.C.) as well, references Isaiah 66:24 (which was written approximately 600 years before Judith, and approximately 100 years before Jesus quoted it).


15. “Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.”
Elizabeth, in the Luke passage tells Mary, “Blessed are you among women.” She did not say that Mary was blessed “above all women,” just blessed “among” women. This is quite different from Uzziah stating that Judith was blessed “more than any other woman on earth.” The difference, in case you did not catch it, is, Mary is simply blessed among women, while Judith is blessed “more” than “any other woman on earth.” Apparently Judith received a far greater blessing than Mary did if one were to accept the apocryphal book of Judith as canonical as the Roman Catholics do.


16. “Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.”
The context of these two passages reveal different meanings entirely. While in Luke 1:52 Mary is praising the Lord and reciting His magnificent works including overthrowing mighty rulers and exalting the lowly and humble; the Sirach passage refers to pride and how it leads to destruction, including causing the Lord to remove prideful rulers and replacing them with humble rulers. In fact, the Sirach passage is expounding on Proverbs 16:18, which was written 700 years before Sirach.


17. “Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.”
Considering that Joseph was a type of Christ, a shadow of the real Christ, it is more logical to say that Simeon's declaration, as well as Anna's statement in Tobit 11:9, follow Jacob's two declarations in Genesis 45:28 and Genesis 46:30, regarding his meeting Joseph after 22 long years during which Jacob believed Joseph was dead where Jacob said he was then ready to die.


18. “Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.”
Again, these two passages refer to two very different events. The Baruch passage refers to the Jew's who have been dispersed throughout the world returning to Jerusalem; and the Luke passage refers to those who have come to Christ for salvation around the world, all coming together, from all points in the world, in heaven where they will live forever.

While many of these passages could, if all hermeneutical principles are abandoned, seem similar; to say they are closely related is akin to saying Bible and the Tripitaka, The sacred book of Buddhism, are closely related because they both contain references to earthquakes.

The Roman Catholic church claims the apocrypha was not “added” to the Bible in 1546, that it has always been considered Scripture, albeit “unofficially;” and that the early church both taught and believed the Apocrypha was, or should be, part of the inspired canon. But is their claim true? Well, somewhat, but not exactly. In 1546 the Roman Catholic church was using Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and had been for some time; and the Vulgate did include the Apocrypha. However, it should be understood that Jerome did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired, and he objected to its inclusion. A debate ensued with the church, and he was overruled. The Apocrypha was included in the Vulgate, but only with Jerome's strong objections.

As it turns out, Jerome was not the only early theologian who firmly believed the Apocrypha was of doubtful origin and anything but inspired. In fact, the Church itself did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, as evidenced by the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., and the earlier Council of Laodicea in 367 A.D. Both councils gave lists of the recognized books of the Bible, and neither one included the Apocrypha.
Certainly there were some early church fathers who accepted either part of all of the Apocryphal books, but they were just as certainly in the minority, as their writings clearly show:
From Julius Africanus (160-240) we read:

"In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this . . . But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews." (Julius Africanus, A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna)
Origen (AD 200), stated:
“It should be observed that the collective books, as handed down by the Hebrews, are twenty-two, according to the number of letters in their alphabet. These twenty-two books, according to the Hebrews, are as follows (he then lists the books as we know them from the Hebrew Bible.)” Origen goes on to write, “Separate from these are the Maccabees.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 296]
And from Athanasius (300?-375) we read:
“But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books--those called apocryphal--led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church . . . 3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance . . . 4 There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second(4a) are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and[5] the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.  5 Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament.. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Festal Letter 39:4-5)
Jerome (347-420) wrote:
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."--(Jerome, Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).
From the writings of Epiphanius (AD 360):
Epiphanius rejected all the Apocrypha. After listing the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible in his writings, he mentions the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach by name and says of them, “These indeed are useful books and profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 300].
Ruffinus (AD 400), the translator of Origen's writings, said:
“These are they which the Fathers concluded within the canon; of which they would have the assertions of our faith to consist. But we must know that there are other books, which are not called canonical, but ecclesiastical, by the ancients; such as the Wisdom, which is called of Solomon, and another Wisdom, which is called of the Son of Sirach; which book among the Latins is called by the general term 'Ecclesiasticus,' by which word, no the author of the book, but the quality of the writing is designated. of the same order is the little book of Tobit, also Judith and the books of Maccabees.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 304-305].
It should also be pointed out that several extant early writings of both Jews and Christians mention the Old Testament repeatedly, but never mention the Apocrypha as inspired. For instance:
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher who lived from 20 B.C. to 40 A.D., quoted extensively in his writings from virtually every canonical Old Testament book, but he never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.

Melito of Sardis, (died c. 180) was the bishop of Sardis near Smyrna in western Anatolia, and a great authority in early Christianity. He wrote, “I accordingly went to the East, and, coming to the very place where these things were preached and transacted, I have accurately learned the books of the Old Testament. Their names are as follows: five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave, Judges, Ruth. Four books of Kings [two of Samuel and two of Kings], two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon (which is also Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job. Of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; and of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras" [including also Nehemiah, and perhaps Esther]." [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 294]. Although he was most certainly aware of the Apocrypha, he did not list the Apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament canon.

Gregory of Nazianzus, the 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople, and considered one of the great theologians of the early church, set forth the books of the Bible in a poem. He lists the standard twenty-two Old Testament books, and then writes there are other books which he states are “separate from these” and “not among the genuine.” Clearly he was well acquainted with the Apocrypha, yet did not consider it to be part of the Old Testament canon, thereby not including them with the established Hebrew canon.

While the Apocrypha is included in the Codex Sinaticus which dates to about 350 A.D., we must remember that Sinaticus is not a Bible, but rather a book which contains the Bible, as well as containing other ecclesiastical writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, neither of which are considered canonical. And let us not forget the oldest extant established canon, the Muratorian Canon (170 A.D.). It too does not include the Apocrypha.
Finally, I feel compelled to include a note from Flavius Josephus (37 A.D.-100 A.D.), the Jewish scholar and historian, who wrote: “From Artexerxes 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, I.8). As you can clearly see, Josephus only counts the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament as divine. He does not include the Apocrypha.
It should be obvious by now that the general consensus amongst the early church fathers was that the Apocrypha was not part of the Old Testament canon, and not considered inspired. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the Apocrypha, and the Hebrew Old Testament never included the Apocrypha, and for good reason as we will soon see.
Scripture makes it very clear that God does not make mistakes. Our Lord does not have “oops moments.” Therefore, if something written is credited to Him as inspired writings, it obviously cannot contain error. The Apocrypha, while useful as history, contains numerous errors and passages that are contrary to established Scripture. This fact alone warrants exclusion from the inspired inerrant and infallible canon of Scripture. What follows are a few examples of the numerous errors, contradictions, and false teachings found in the Apocrypha.
Contradictions to Established Scripture:

1. Scripture teaches God spoke the creation into existence (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6-9; Hebrews 11:3).
The Apocrypha teaches God created the world out of “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
2. Scripture teaches that our soul is formed with us at the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13-16; Zechariah 12:1)
The Apocrypha teaches the false doctrine of the reincarnation of the soul, which states the kind of body one has now is determined by the character of his or her soul in a previous life. Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 states, “Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.”
3. Scripture teaches that man dies only once, and then faces judgment (Hebrews 9:27). “The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . . The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him” (Ezekiel 18:20); and once dead, there is no remedy for sin. The one who dies in their sin will enter Hades where they will await the final judgment and being cast into the Lake of Fire (Luke 16:19-31).
The Apocrypha teaches the false doctrine that prayer may be made for the dead: “Wherefore he made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sins” (2 Maccabees 12:43-45). This is a false teaching that is contrary to Scripture.
4. Scripture teaches we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-10); and the only way to heaven is through Jesus – publicly confessing Him and believing in ones heart that He was raised from the dead (John 14:6; Romans 10:9-10).
The Apocrypha falsely teaches that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms: “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” (Tobit 12:9; 2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
5. Scripture teaches that suicide is equal to murder – self-murder. It usurps God's authority, because only God has the authority to determine how and when a person should die. “My times are in your hands” (Psalm 31:15). Only God can give or take away life (Job 1:21) and no man or woman should presume to take God's authority upon themselves to end their life.
The Apocrypha, however, teaches that suicide can be a noble and manly act. 2 Maccabees 14:41-43 teaches that Razis chose to die “nobly” by committing the “manful” act of suicide in the middle of a crowd.
6. Scripture teaches, in both the Old and New Testaments, that all forms of witchcraft and sorcery, including the casting of magical spells, are condemned as sinful acts (Deuteronomy 18:10–16; Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:27; Malachi 3:5; Acts 13:8–10; Revelation 18:23; 21:8; see also Revelation 22:15).
The Apocrypha, however, condones the use of magical spells, specifically the smoke from a smoldering fish heart, to drive away demons (Tobit 6:1-17)
7. Scripture teaches that the murder of the men of Shechem was an act of violence born out of anger, and it was rightly condemned (Genesis 34, cf. 49:6-7).
The Apocrypha falsely teaches the murder of the men of Shechem was to be commended, and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9)

Contradictions and Errors withing the Apocrypha:

1. Scripture: Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month, of the nineteenth year of his reign. Soon after Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch were taken into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:6-7; 52:12-13).
Apocrypha: While Jeremiah and Baruch were taken into Egypt, Baruch was simultaneously in Babylon (Baruch 1:1-2)
Either Baruch had some mystical power that enabled him to be in two places at the same time, or there is an obvious error here.
2. Antiochus Epiphanes and his company were murdered by Nanaea's priests, being “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea's priests” (2 Maccabees 1:13-16). Yet eight chapters later we read that Antiochus Epiphanes was “taken with a noisome sickness” and “ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (2 Maccabees 9:19-29).
Antiochus Epiphanes was first murdered by being cut into little pieces, and then he died a second time of a strange illness.
3. Tobit was present when King Jeroboam set up the golden calves, which happened during Jeroboam's 22-year reign from 990-968 B.C. Tobit was also part of the Assyrian captivity which occurred in 722 B.C. (Tobit 1:1-6). Since he went to worship God in the Temple during the golden calf worship set up by Jeroboam, he had to have been at least 13-years old at that time. Putting this at the end of Jeroboam's reign in 968 B.C., he would have been 259 years old at the beginning of the Assyrian captivity. Except that Tobit died at 102 years of age (Tobit 14:2). An error of at least 157 years!
4. Scripture teaches that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon. (Daniel, chapters 1-4).
The Apocrypha teaches that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria (Judith 1:5).
5. Scripture teaches the Jews would serve in Babylon for 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11).
The Apocrypha teaches the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations (approximately 140 years) (Baruch 6:2).
Clearly, due to the historical and doctrinal errors and contradictions within the Apocrypha; as well as the lack of substantive historical acceptance within the early church of the Apocrypha as inspired; the apocryphal books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, but never as the inspired, inerrant, infallible and authoritative Word of God.