How Can This Happen In America – Part 2

by Robert Tuttle, III

There are three very important key phrases in these two verses that must be understood. The first is, “confess with your mouth.” This means you fully, unquestioningly, and unhesitatingly verbally agree, with the implication that in verbally agreeing one is also agreeing in their spirit. The second is “Jesus as Lord.” Some translations read, “the Lord Jesus.” Either way it is translated, the meaning is the same, Jesus IS Lord. The meaning is clear. In order to gain salvation, one must verbally agree that Jesus is Lord.

Now, before anyone jumps up and yells “Jesus is Lord!” and think they have salvation, remember that one must also agree in their spirit, their inner person, where truly and sincerely held beliefs are found. And one cannot agree that Jesus is Lord unless they first understand what Lord means. Hint: It doesn’t simply mean “boss of my life” as many people believe it does. The word is translated from the Greek word Kurios (koo'-ree-os), which means “lord,” as in one exercising full and sovereign authority over. It also means “master,” as in one who has complete and absolute ownership rights. Think both sovereign monarch, and also slave owner. Yes, I agree that “slave owner” sounds like a very harsh, cruel, and unloving thing to say about Jesus; however, given that He literally purchased every single person who biblically believes in Him and their redemption with His very blood, it isn’t too much of a stretch to realize that yes, He owns each and every true biblical Christian.

The third key phrase that must be understood is “believe in your heart.” This phrase in the Greek is “pisteusēs en tē kardia” which is literally translated as “believe in the heart.” The word believe, and I want you all to understand this as it is very important to gaining salvation, the word believe is used in the New Testament of “the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher perogative and law of his soul.”1 Therefore, what Romans 10:9 is referring to with this word, is the absolute conviction that what follows in the text (namely the gospel) is completely and unquestioningly true, that God really and truly raised Jesus Christ bodily from the dead.

The word translated as “heart” is “kardia” from which we get our word cardiology as well as a number of heart related terms beginning with the prefix cardi. In English, the term most often refers to the powerful chambered organ in the center of our chest that pumps life sustaining blood throughout our bodies. But not so in the New Testament. Of the some 800 or so times it is used in the New Testament the word kardia never refers to the human organ. Instead it always refers to the center of who we are as a person. That unseen part of us that contains our beliefs, preferences, desires, opinions, ability to make decisions, and so forth. Our mind, our soul if you will. It is who we are beyond the physical body we inhabit. It is therefore absolutely necessary, as in a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement to salvation, that we “pisteusēs en tē kardia,” believe in the heart, our soul, that God raised Jesus Christ bodily from the dead – essentially believe the gospel as absolutely and completely true.

This is a lot to take in! Clearly though, the Bible obviously refutes the commonly held belief among most people that if we say some little pray where we intellectually acknowledge that we are a sinner, and say the words “Jesus forgive me” (or some iteration of that) and ask Him “into your heart” (whatever that means, as it is nowhere in the Bible) then the person will be saved. That is a false gospel that inevitably leads people into believing they say that little “repeat-a-prayer” and then live however they might want to live, in whatever sin they might desire, and still enter heaven. That is the heresy of antinomianism by the way.

No, we must remember the very words of Almighty God, who very plainly and bluntly stated, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the WRATH of God abides on him.” (John 3:36 NASB77, emphasis mine).

Obedience to God, to Jesus, while not necessary to receive salvation, it is the natural and biblically guaranteed result of having salvation from immoral sin and the wrath of God coming upon all immoral sinners. Obedience is the evidence of salvation. As God points out in John 3:36, if there is not obedience to Jesus, then there is no salvation; and, if there is no salvation then those who continue in their sinful immorality have nothing to look forward to other than spending the remainder of eternity in hell, the lake of fire, where the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies. A place of eternal torment, of weeping and gnashing teeth, where the unregenerate are punished eternally for their sins against the eternal God. (see Matthew 25:41,46; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 13:24-28; Matthew 13:40-43; Revelation 19:20; 20:10,14,15; and 21:8). I think the absolute horror of it is simply not grasped by a lot of people.

I sincerely applaud you if you have held on to the end of this rather long (and long winded) second half of this two-part “How Can This Happen in America?” article series. I apologize for being long winded, but I wanted to make sure that you, Dear Reader, have a full and complete understanding of this eternally important subject.




1. THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.; Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.; All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

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).

Is the Apocrypha Inspired Scripture? - Part 2
Did the early church accept the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon of Scripture?

As seen in part one of this four part series, contrary to the claims of Roman Catholic apologists, neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor any New Testament writer ever quoted from the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings. This leads us to part two, and the claim that the early Church accepted the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as inspired Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church and her apologists (both professional and lay apologists) frequently claim the early church accepted the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings as divinely inspired Scripture. They often go to bolster their argument by saying the Septuagint contained the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings, and since the first century Jews, including Jesus, the Apostles, and the first century Christian church accepted the Septuagint as divinely inspired Scripture, they automatically accepted the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings as divinely inspired as well. In addition, a few have tried to claim a sort of conspiracy among first century Jewish religious leaders to remove the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings from the Septuagint in order to remove all of the messianic prophecies, and thus refute Jesus' Messianic claims. Each of these arguments will be addressed in this installment of the series on the apocrypha.
Did the Early Church Accept the Apocrypha as Divinely Inspired Scripture?
If one were to take the Roman Catholic claims of early church acceptance of the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings at face value, allowing them the benefit of the doubt, one might be led to believe the early church really did accept them. An examination of the extant writings of the early church fathers, however, provides a more realistic view of this topic. To begin with, let's take a look at some of the early church fathers, and what they had to say on the subject of accepted Old Testament canon.
1. Melito of Sardis (died c. 180)
Melito of Sardis was the bishop of Sardis, which was near Smyrna, which today is in the Manisa province of Turkey. Melito was highly esteemed by the early church, and his word was considered to be authoritative. The early church father, Jerome, himself one of the greatest biblical scholars who ever lived, quoted Tertullian in speaking of Melito, saying that Melito was esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful. Melito is today well known for his work in developing the very first accepted Christian Old Testament Canon. In about 170 A.D., Melito traveled to Palestine and very likely visited the library of Caesarea Maritima, and soon after produced his list of accepted and inspired Old Testament canon. He wrote,
“Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave [the Book of Joshua], Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings]; of Chronicles, two [1&2 Chronicles]; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also*, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [Ezra]. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” (as noted in Eusebuis' Ecclesiastical History, IV, 26, 13-14)
*This is not a reference to the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, but rather the five books which are considered “Wisdom” in the Bible. This line in Melito's letter might be better understood as “...Of Moses, five books: … of Chronicles, two. Psalms, Proverbs, and also of the Wisdom books, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs and Job. …”
Although it is almost certain that Melito was fully aware of the apocryphal books, he did not include them as part of the inspired canon of Scripture.

2. Sextus Julius Africanus (160-240)

Julius Africanus was at one time a soldier, and he converted to Christianity from paganism. He was known as a Christian scholar and historian. He traveled extensively, and is known to have spent time in Libya, Emmaus, Greece, Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria where he spent time studying at its famous catechetical school. He was fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew.
In his letter to Origen, Julius makes reference to the apocryphal addition to the book of Daniel known as “The History of Susanna”. He wrote:
“Greeting, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus. 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. When Susanna is condemned to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out that the sentence is unjust. Now, in the first place, it is always in some other way that Daniel prophesies – by visions, and dreams, and an angel appearing to him, never by prophetic inspiration. Then, after crying out in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to. For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery. And when the one said, “Under a holm-tree” (prinos), he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein); and in a similar fashion menaced the other who said, “Under a mastich-tree” (schinos), with being rent asunder (schisthenai). Now, in Greek, it happens that “holm-tree” and “saw asunder,” and “rend” and “mastich-tree” sound alike; but in Hebrew they are quite distinct. But all the books of the Old Testament have been translated from Hebrew into Greek.
“Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldaeans, lost and won at play? Thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied; how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner of his throne? Then if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden? 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. And add that, among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true; but this one, in rebuking one of those men, quotes the words of the Lord: “The innocent and righteous shall thou not slay.” From all this I infer that this section is a later addition. Moreover, the style is different. I have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me. Salute all my masters. The learned all salute thee. With all my heart I pray for your and your circle’s health.”
It is clear from his letter to Origen that Julius accepted as inspired Scripture, only those 22 books found in the Jewish Tanakh, which are the exact same books found in the Protestant Bible today, albeit arranged in a different order. That he found it necessary to write to Origen regarding Origen's insistence that the History of Susanna be included as Scripture is important, as it provides a point in time, or at least a tentative point in time, where some of the apocryphal writings start to be accepted as Scripture. Julius' insistence that the History of Susanna, coupled with his logical argument in support of his position, show an early attempt to protect the sanctity of the Old Testament canon from the inclusion of what he saw as spurious, uninspired writings.
3. Origen (185-254)
Origen was an early church father who was, in his time, recognized as one of the leading scholars of his day. He revived the Alexandrian Catechetical School which had suffered during the great persecution of the Roman Emperor Severus. He excelled in multiple branches of theological scholarship. He compiled the Hexapla, which was a parallel Old Testament in six columns, containing the Hebrew Old Testament, the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek, the Septuagint, and the Greek versions of Theodotion, Aquila of Sinope, and Symmachus (the last three were Greek scholars who produced their own Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures). This was a huge word-for-word comparison of the Septuagint with the original Hebrew Scriptures, and those of other Greek translations. Origen was also responsible for writing commentaries on most of the books of the Bible. He is known to have written extensively on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, Psalms, Canticles (also known as the Song of Songs or the Song of Solomon), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Luke.
Eusebius, in his work, Ecclesiastical History, provides a list of Old Testament canonical books accepted by third century churches. Eusebius based this list on the writings of Origen. It is found in Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25. It states:
“Chapter 25. His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.

“1. When expounding the first Psalm, he [Origen] gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows:
'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of their letters.' Farther on he says: "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Breshith, which means 'in the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'these are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'and he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim 'these are the words'; Joshua the son of Nun, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the first and second of Kings, among them one, Samoel, that is, 'the called of God'; the third and fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'the kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the first and second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'records of days'; Esdras, first and second [Ezra and Nehemiah] in one, Ezra, that is, 'an assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Epistle in one, Jeremia*; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther; And outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
*Although Origen lists the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah in his list, he does not list Baruch. This is interesting since the Epistle is often included as a sixth chapter of Baruch. Because of this anomaly, some scholars believe the Epistle of Jeremiah was a later addition to this list.
There are some interesting things about Origen and his list of accepted canonical writings. First, as noted above, Origen wrote extensively on several books of the Bible; but there is no evidence he wrote anything regarding the apocryphal books. Although he does include the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah in his list (which many scholars consider to be a later addition to his list), Origen specifically singles out the Maccabees books as being spurious writings, and not inspired Scripture. Also, that Origen points out there are only 22 accepted canonical books in the Hebrew Tanakh (which coincide with the Protestant Old Testament, although arranged and numbered differently). Origen then shows that he is willing to add to the accepted inspired canon – assuming it was actually Origen that added the Epistle of Jeremiah.
Considering Origen's sometimes odd theology (he believed in the pre-existence of the soul, among other non-biblical beliefs), it is not too difficult to believe that in spite of his great theological intelligence, he was not averse to go beyond established theological boundaries, including those which determined the accepted Old Testament canon. But he was not, apparently, willing to go too far as he singled out Maccabees as non-canonical. Suffice to say, Origen recognized that by the third century, the Christian church accepted as canonical only the established books of the Jewish Tanakh, the Old Testament, and not the apocrypha.
4. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313-386)
Cyril of Jerusalem was a highly respected Christian scholar of the early church. He was ordained a deacon circa 335, a priest circa 343, and in 350, he became Bishop of Jerusalem (where he is believed to have been born c.313).
In Cyril's Catechetical Lectures (iv., 33-37), written circa 350, we read this venerable Bishop's understanding of the accepted, inspired Old Testament canon. He writes,
“Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.*
“For after the death of Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, and the division of his kingdom into four principalities, into Babylonia, and Macedonia, and Asia, and Egypt, one of those who reigned over Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, being a king very fond of learning, while collecting the books that were in every place, heard from Demetrius Phalereus, the curator of his library, of the Divine Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and judged it much nobler, not to get the books from the possessors by force against their will, but rather to propitiate them by gifts and friendship; and knowing that what is extorted is often adulterated, being given unwillingly, while that which is willingly supplied is freely given with all sincerity, he sent to Eleazar, who was then High Priest, a great many gifts for the Temple here at Jerusalem, and caused him to send him six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes of Israel for the translation.** Then, further, to make experiment whether the books were Divine or not, he took precaution that those who had been sent should not combine among themselves, by assigning to each of the interpreters who had come his separate chamber in the island called Pharos, which lies over against Alexandria, and committed to each the whole Scriptures to translate. And when they had fulfilled the task in seventy-two days, he brought together all their translations, which they had made in different chambers without sending them one to another, and found that they agreed not only in the sense but even in words. For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished.
“Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not [do not transgress] upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, [Nave = Nun] and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings [1&2 Samuel] are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth [1&2 Kings] one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras [Ezra & Nehemiah] are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; [The Epistle of Jeremiah] then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

[Emphasis and explanations added]
* This account of the Septuagint (72 translators) comes from a letter allegedly written by a minister of Ptolemy II to his brother. Some believe the letter is not genuine, however, the statements contained within it are confirmed by other ancient writings
** Again, a reference to the Septuagint.
Cyril's list of the historically accepted Jewish Scriptures, the Tanakh, as based on the Septuagint, seem to imply that the Septuagint did not initially include the Apocryphal books (with the possible exception of Baruch), contrary to the claims of Roman Catholic apologists. Clearly Cyril was aware of the apocryphal writings as he warned against reading them. However, when he lists the Jewish Scriptures that are included in the Septuagint, he does not include them in his list.
Although Cyril seems to accept the apocryphal book of Baruch, along with its sixth chapter which is comprised of the Epistle of Jeremiah; he does make it a point to specifically single out the apocrypha (apparently other than Baruch) as those writings that to be avoided. While I do think Cyril is wrong to include Baruch (for reasons that will be addressed later), it is important, very important, that this venerable Bishop of the early church cautioned the church to reject the books of Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, 3 & 4 Maccabees, 3 & 4 Esdras, The Story (or History) of Susanna, the Hymn of the Three Children, the fables of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and the additions to Esther. These are the apocryphal writings.
Contrary to Cyril's warning, the Roman Catholic church accepts as divinely inspired all of these except 3&4 Maccabees, 3&4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. The Orthodox church accepts all of the apocryphal writings accepted by the Roman Catholic church, plus some of the other apocryphal writings. The Roman Catholic church insists these writings were unanimously accepted by the early church, and yet, contrary to their claims, we can see they were not unanimously accepted by all in the early church, and some, such as Cyril, actually warned against reading these apocryphal writings!
5. Athanasius (296-373)
Athanasius was the twentieth bishop of Alexandria. He was known as a pillar of the church, and he was the quite likely the Church's greatest defender of the doctrine of the Trinity. He is counted as one of the four great Eastern “Doctors of the Church,” and he has long been known as the father of orthodoxy and the father of the canon of Scripture. Recognized as one of the greatest theologians of the Church, Athanasius wrote many books, homilies, letters, and more which the Church has recognized as essential to understanding many of the historical doctrines of the Church. While he authored classics such as Against the Pagans, On the Incarnation of the Word, On the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea (which he attended), Life of Antony, The Paradise or Garden of the Holy Fathers, History of the Arians, and, Orations or Discourses against the Arians; we are interested in one of his Festal Letters, the 39th Festal Letter to be exact, which he wrote in 367 A.D., and within which he sets forth the established canon of Old Testament inspired Scripture. He wrote:
“Concerning the Divine Scriptures
“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 [1&2 Samuel] being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth [1&2 Kings] as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second [Ezra & Nehemiah] 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 [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle*, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.”
*The “Epistle” is actually the Epistle of Jeremiah, and is generally considered the final chapter in the book of Baruch.


Although Athanasius includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, it is important to note his exclusion of the remainder of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings from the established canon of Scripture. Athanasius did not arbitrarily invent the canon. Instead, it was developed over a period of time and the result of careful investigation and deliberation, with said investigation fully documented in a codex of the Greek Bible, as well as in his Festal Letter.

Athanasius' list of canonical books is similar to the Codex Vaticanus. In 382, Pope Damasus I compiled a list of accepted and established canonical books. His list was identical to Athanasius' list.
It is also interesting to note that, although Athanasius was well versed in Greek, he did not know Hebrew. Something he freely admitted. Therefore, he relied almost exclusively on the Septuagint for his knowledge of the Old Testament. What makes this worthy of note is the fact that although he was aware of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, he still excluded them from the canon of inspired Scripture. The recognized father of the canon of Scripture, one of the greatest theologians the Church has ever produced, a monumental pillar of the Church, excluded the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings from the accepted canon of Scripture. It is also noteworthy that Pope Damasus I also accepted Athanasius' list of canonical Scripture. From the standpoint of the Church hierarchy, this is the equivalent of having Athanasius' list of accepted canonical Scripture ratified. Therefore, as of 382 A.D., the standard 39 books of the Old Testament, plus Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah) was the established and accepted by the Church Old Testament canon of inspired Scriptures.
6. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)
Known as the “Hammer of the Arians,” and the “Athanasius of the West,” Hilary of Poitiers was Bishop of Poitiers in Gaul. He is considered one of the few Doctors of the Church, and was one of the few Church fathers of the West who was able to read Greek. In his Expositions of the Psalms, Section 15, written circa 360 A.D., he wrote:
“The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings [what we refer to as 1&2 Samuel] the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] [what we refer to as 1&2 Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh [Ezra & Nehemiah were counted as one book],the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle)* and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.”
*Hilary was likely referring to the Epistle of Jeremiah. Whether or not he included Baruch with the Epistle is unknown, though they often appeared together as one book.
As with those before him, Hilary did not endorse the apocrypha as inspired Scripture, instead limiting the Old Testament canon to the 22 books of the accepted and established Hebrew Scriptures. He does note that Hellenized Jews added the apocryphal books of Tobit and Judith to their version of the Old Testament.
7. Amphilochius of Iconium (c.339/340A.D.-c.394A.D.)
Amphilochius of Iconium was the Bishop of Iconium (in Galatia) from 373 to 394. In addition to the many written works he produced, his Iambics for Seleusus sets forth the accepted canon of Scripture during his time. Iambics is written as a didactic poem, a poem designed to be instructional. In the case of Amphilochius' Iambics, it is designed to help the reader learn those books of Scripture that are accepted as inspired canon. He writes,
But this especially for you to learn
is fitting: not every book is safe
which has acquired the venerable name of Scripture.
For there appear from time to time pseudonymous
books, some of which are intermediate or neighbours,
as one might say, to the words of Truth,
while others are spurious and utterly unsafe,
like counterfeit and spurious coins
which bear the king's inscription,
but as regards their material are base forgeries.
For this reason I will state for you the divinely inspired
books one by one, so that you may learn them clearly.
I will first recite those of the Old Testament.
The Pentateuch has Creation [Genesis], then Exodus,
and Leviticus, the middle book,
after which is Numbers, then Deuteronomy.
Add to these Joshua, and Judges,
then Ruth, and of Kingdoms the four
books [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings], and the double team of Chronicles;
after these, Esdras, one and then the second [Ezra & Nehemiah].
Then I would review for you five in verse:
Job, crowned in the contests of many sufferings,
and the Book of Psalms, soothing remedy for the soul,
three of Solomon the Wise: Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles.
Add to these the Prophets Twelve,
Hosea first, then Amos the second,
Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and the type
of Him who three days suffered, Jonah,
Nahum after those, and Habakkuk; and ninth,
Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah,
and twice-named angel Malachi.
After these prophets learn yet another four:
The great and fearless Isaiah,
the sympathetic Jeremiah, and mysterious
Ezekiel, and finally Daniel,
most wise in his deeds and words.
With these, some approve the inclusion of Esther.

Time now for me to recite the books of the New Testament.
Accept only four Evangelists,
Matthew, then Mark, to which Luke as third
add; count John in time as
fourth, but first in sublimity of dogma.
Son of Thunder rightly he is called,
who loudly sounded forth the Word of God.
Accept from Luke a second book also,
that of the catholic Acts of the Apostles.
Add to these besides that Chosen Vessel,
Herald of the Gentiles, the Apostle
Paul, writing in wisdom to the churches
twice seven epistles, one to the Romans,
to which must be added two to the Corinthians,
and that to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians,
after which there is the one to the Philippians, then those written
to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians two,
two to Timothy, and to Titus and Philemon
one each, and to the Hebrews one.
Some call that to the Hebrews spurious,
but they say it not well; for the grace is genuine.
What then is left? Of the Catholic epistles
some say seven, others only three
must be accepted: one of James,
one of Peter, one of John,
otherwise three of John, and with them two
of Peter, and also Jude's, the seventh.
The Apocalypse of John, again,
some approve, but most
will call it spurious. This would be the most unerring
canon of the divinely inspired scriptures.
As can be seen, there is no mention of any apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings. Amphilochius does not include them in what he calls the “canon of the divinely inspired scriptures.”
8. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390)
Gregory of Nazianzus was the Archbishop of Constantinople during the fourth century. He was known as “Gregory the Theologian,” and is considered to be on the greatest theologians of his time. He was one of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. When he was near the end of his life, Gregory composed a list of the accepted and established canon of Scripture. He wrote,
“Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture
The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor, so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity, and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study. But let not extraneous books seduce your mind. For many malignant writings have been disseminated. Accept, o friend, this my approved number. These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too. Then Numbers, and the Second Law [Deuteronomy]. Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts of Kings [1&2 Samuel as one book, 1&2 Kings as one book], and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra. The poetic books are five: Job being first, then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs. And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. There are the Twelve written in one book: Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. All these are one. The second is of Isaiah. Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters.”
In his list of the inspired canonical books of Scripture, Gregory excludes every single apocryphal / deuterocanonical writing. He does, however, warn against “extraneous books” and “malignant writings” which have been disseminated, presumably amongst the churches.

9. Epiphanius (310-403)
Epiphanius of Salamis was the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, near the end of the 4th century. Known as “the great opposer of heresy,” Epiphanius had a reputation as a strong defender of the Christian faith. In his major work against heresy, Panarion (viii.6), he wrote,

“By the time of the captives' return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings.[1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings] 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra.[Nehemiah] 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law's observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Here, Epiphanius not only specifically excludes the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings from the list of accepted divinely inspired Scripture; but he also points to the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon as disputed works – works which he has pointedly excluded from the canonical Scriptures.
10. Jerome (347-420)
Jerome was a priest, historian, and theologian par excellence. Although he wrote extensively, he is perhaps best known for his translation of most of the Greek Bible into Latin. His Latin translation is known as the Vulgate. In the preface to his Books of the Kings, written in about 391 A.D., Jerome wrote,

“That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified also by the Syrian and Chaldaaen languages, which for the most part correspond to the Hebrew; for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses with just the same number of letters, differing only in the shape and points of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, for up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, moreover, where we have the census of the Levites and priests, the same total is presented mystically. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, are all composed according to an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read "Who will find a steadfast woman?" are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. Furthermore, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.

“The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, 'Law.'
“The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.
“To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
“And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.'
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.”


As with the previous Archbishop's, scholars, theologians, and Doctor's of the early Church, Jerome excludes the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings from his list of inspired Scripture. By 397, however, the Church leaders had become insistent upon including them, and when Jerome produced the Vulgate without them, the Church leadership was not pleased. Although Jerome strenuously objected to the inclusion of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings due to their obvious lack of divine inspiration, in the end, for whatever reason, Jerome caved in to the pressure placed upon him by the Church and the apocrypha was reluctantly included in the Vulgate – but not without a disclaimer.

In his Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs), Jerome 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.”
11. Ruffinus (340-410)
Last in our examination of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries of the Christian Church, is Ruffinus, also known as Rufinus of Aquileia and also, Tyrannius Rufinus. He was a monk, an historian, a theologian, and translator of the Greek writings of the church fathers (most prominently Origen) into Latin. In his work, Expositions of the Creed, written about 400 A.D., Rufinus wrote,
“it was the Holy Spirit who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, and in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. For which reason the apostle also says, “All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” And therefore it seems proper in this place to specify by a distinct enumeration, from the records of the fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, in accordance with the tradition of our ancestors, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the churches of Christ.
“Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [1&2 Chronicles], and two books of Ezra [Ezra & Nehemiah], which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
“Of the New Testament there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Luke; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord and an apostle, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of John.
“These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.
“But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not canonical but ecclesiastical by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
“With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways [the Epistle of Barnabas] and the Judgment of Peter. They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named 'apocrypha,*' which they would not have read in the churches.
“These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking.”
*The word, “apocrypha” as used by Ruffinus here, is used to indicate heretical books. It does not indicate non-canonical but useful books as we use the word today.
Not only does Ruffinus exclude the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings from the established and accepted as inspired Scriptures (just as most of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries did), but he makes two very important and instructional statements. The first is his naming those books which are to be considered useful, not as inspired Scripture. He names the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith and the books of the Maccabees, calling them “ecclesiastical” but “not canonical,” and he states this was a determination made by “the ancients.” Second, he points out that the list of inspired, canonical Scriptures have been handed down through the history of the Church by the Church Fathers.
These two statements, especially when considered in the light of other writings by the Church Fathers of the first three centuries, show without doubt that the seven apocrypha / deuterocanonical books accepted by the Roman Catholic church (Toibt, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or Ecclesiasticus], Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, as well as their additions to Esther and Daniel) were not accepted as inspired canon prior to at least 397 A.D. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Baruch, this was not in dispute within the Church of the first three (and most of the fourth) centuries!
The recognized leaders and theological scholars of the early Church, including seven Bishops (Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Amphilochius of Iconium, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Epiphanius of Salamis), and four leading theologians (Julius Africanus, Origen, Jerome and Ruffinus) – and noting that five of these eleven Church Fathers were considered Doctors of the Church – all rejected the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as inspired canon!


Additional Testimony Regarding The Rejection of the Apocrypha
In addition to the documented witness of the Church Fathers of the first three (and most of the fourth) centuries regarding the established canon of Scripture, we have other early church writings that, although they do not reject the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings specifically, they do not include them in their writings, which is indicative of their rejection of them. For example, Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher who lived from 20 B.C. to 40 A.D., quoted extensively from every canonical Old Testament book in his writings. However, he never once quoted the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings.
Additionally, we have the writings of Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. - 100 A.D.), a Romano-Jewish scholar and historian, as well as a contemporary of the Apostles Peter, Paul and John. He writes in his, Against Apion (I.8), “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.”
What is most interesting here is, not only does Josephus provide the same list of inspired Old Testament Scriptures which were accepted by the Church Fathers noted above – stating they “contain divine doctrine, but he indicates the accepted Hebrew Old Testament canon was closed by the end of the reign of Artaxerxes (who reigned from 465 B.C. to 424 B.C.), which corresponds to the writing of the last of the Old Testament books, Nehemiah (believed to have been written between 424 B.C. and 400 B.C.). Josephus then goes on to acknowledge, “It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.” This is a reference to the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings which were written between 400 B.C. and 200 A.D.


Early Canonical Lists and Councils

In addition to the testimony of the early Church Fathers of the first three (as well as most of the fourth) centuries, and the testimony of other early writings, we have the testimony of other early lists of accepted canonical Scriptures, and also the early Church Councils.
1. Codex Hierosolymitanus
Also known as the Bryennios List, this is likely the earliest reference to the accepted canonical Scriptures. Although some scholars believe it should be assigned a later date, most scholars believe it to have been written between the late first and early second century A.D. It is written in Greek, with Aramaic and Hebrew transcriptions, and was discovered in the mid-19th century in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In addition to the list of canonical writings, the codex also includes the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 & 2 Epistles of Clement, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. The list of accepted as inspired Hebrew Scriptures included in the codex is as follows:
“Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave [Joshua], Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings [1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras [Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, [and] Daniel.”
Noteworthy is, of course, the exclusion of any of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings in this list, which is quite possibly the oldest canonical list of inspired Scriptures extant.
2. The Muritorian Canon
The Muriatorian Canon is the earliest known accepted canon of Scripture – dated to around 170 A.D. Unfortunately, only a fragment of the papyrus remains, and it is not in the best of condition. However, what does remain contains commentary on some of the books and writings that were, at that early time, considered to by non-canonical. The fragment reads as follows:
“. . .
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.
The fourth of the Gospels is that of John
John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his Epistles,
the acts of all the apostles
the Epistles of Paul,
First of all, to the Corinthians
Galatians
Romans
Paul also wrote to Philemon
to Titus, and
two to Timothy
John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all.
There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church --
Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned or, bearing the name of John are counted or, used in the catholic Church;
and the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. Proverbs & Ecclesiastes
We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.
But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians . . .”
3. Council of Laodicea
The Council of Laodicea convened in about 363 A.D., for the purpose of addressing several issues which the Church at the time considered serious enough to warrant such a council. Among the issues was the maintaining of order among the bishops, clerics and laypeople; establishing and enforcing a code of modest behavior among the clerics and laypeople; establishing and regulating a standard approach to dealing with heretics; identifying and outlining various Church practices; and, among other things, specifying a Biblical canon. This particular issue is contained withing canons 59 and 60 of the Council of Laodicea. Canon 59 prohibited the reading of non-canonical books in church. Canon 60 provided the list of the accepted canonical Scriptures. The list, as contained in the canon 60, reads as follows:
“It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [what we refer to as 1&2 Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [what we refer to as 1&2 Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [what we refer to as Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.”
Before we go any further discussing the canon of Scripture as outlined by the Council of Laodicea, it is is important to note that not every scholar accepts this list, indeed canon 60 in its entirety, as original to the Council's canons. Since it is missing from some copies (thought not all) of the Council's canons, some believe it was added later as an explanatory note to canon 59.
That being said, however, it is important to note that the list is virtually identical to every other list produced by the Church Fathers up to this point. Therefore, its inclusion is by no means anachronistic. It is virtually the same list of canonical books of Scripture that was accepted as the inspired word of God throughout the Church from Sardis to Jerusalem, to Alexandria, to Gaul, to Galatia, to Iconium, to Salamis, and beyond.


Acceptance of the Apocrypha by Roman Catholic theologians between 397 and the Reformation (and beyond)
As we have seen, the apocrypha (with the occasional exception of Baruch) was not accepted as inspired Scripture by most of the early Church Fathers of the first three centuries. That seemed to change in about 397 A.D. when Augustine came forth stating he accepted the apocrypha as inspired Scripture; and not long after both the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Hippo (397) set forth the accepted canon of inspired Scripture which included the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings.
One might think the issue was settled at that point. The Church accepted the canon as inspired Scripture and that was that. If one did think that, then one would be wrong. The fact is that many Roman Catholic scholars, through the Protestant Reformation and beyond, rejected the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings Scripture. For example:
1. Gregory the Great (590-604)
Gregory the Great was the Bishop of Rome from 590-604, and he is considered a Doctor of the Church. In his commentary on the Book of Job, Gregory the Great writes regarding the apocryphal / deuterocanonical book of 1 Maccabees,
“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.” (Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424)
Gregory wrote this approximately two centuries after Carthage and Hippo deemed 1 Maccabees and the rest of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings to be inspired Scripture. That this is a Bishop of the Church who is also a Church Doctor is significant, as he is stating this in direct opposition to Pope Innocent 1 who had previously sanctioned the canonical list of inspired books of Scripture presented by Augustine, Carthage, and Hippo.
2. Peter Blensensis (1130-1203)
Peter Blensensis was a Roman Catholic theologian and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archdeacon of Bath in 1176, and he was later made Archdeacon of London. While Blensensis does not reject the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, he does present a startling confession of fact in his Quales sunt, wherein he lists the Old Testament canonical books as twenty-two, divided into three categories:The Law, The Prophets, and The Hagiographa. He lists the Hebrew canonical books by name and the states the apocrypha is not part of the Hebrew Old Testament canon. He goes on to write that the Catholic Church accepts the apocrypha as a fourth division or category of divine Scripture.
What makes this important is Blensensis' declaration that the apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew Scriptures (although the Roman Catholic's did adopt them as such). This is completely contrary to the claim often made by Roman Catholic apologists that the Jews of the first century accepted apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as Scripture.
3. Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340)
Nicholas of Lyra was a Franciscan theologian who had received his doctor's degree in Paris. An accomplished theologian, he was a master of the Hebrew language, and he was appointed professor at the University of Paris. Nicholas was considered to be one of the most influential exegetes of his time. The Catholic Encyclopedia ranks him as “among the foremost exegetes of all time.” In his biblical commentaries he writes,
“Here begins the commentary of Nicholas of Lyra on the Book of Tobit, and first the preface to the book. 'It is right to do these things and not to omit those,' Mt 23. After I have, with God's help, written on the canonical books of Holy Scripture, starting from the beginning of Genesis and proceeding to the end of Revelation, I intend, trusting again in God's help, to write on the other books that are not of the canon, namely the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Books of Maccabees, following what Jerome says in the Helmeted Prologue, which is placed before the Books of Kings; and he says the same thing about the Book of Baruch in his prologue and about Second Ezra in his prologue on Ezra.”
He goes on to write concerning the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings:
“it should be considered that the books that are not part of the canon are received by the Church so that they may be read in her for the instruction of morals, yet their authority is not judged adequate for proving things that come into contention” (Postilla Nicolai de Lyra super librum Tobiae, prefatio. Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyrae litterali et morali (Basel:Petri & Froben, 1498). British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 2). Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward).
He repeats his statements regarding the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings over and over again through his commentaries.
4. Cardinal Ximenes (1436-1517)
Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, O.F.M. (1436-1517), also known as Ximenes de Cisneros, was a Franciscan, a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and the Primate of Spain. Among other notable events in his life, he is known as the Grand Inquisitor, and a promoter of the Crusades. It could be said he was the epitome of a Roman Catholic of his time. During the sixteenth century, Ximenes worked alongside the leading theologians of his day to produce an edition of the Bible known as the Biblia Complutensia. It was the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible. In the preface to the Biblia Complutensia we read a disclaimer which states the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel (the apocrypha) are not canonical Scripture, although the Church allowed them to read simply for the purposes of edification.
The Biblia Complutensia was officially sanctioned by Pope Leo X, thus making it an authoritative edition of the Bible. This papal sanction extends to the entire polyglot, including the admonition within it to not understand the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings as inspired Scripture. In other words, not only did Cardinal Ximenes, the Grand Inquisitor, reject the idea of divine inspiration of the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings; but the papacy officially agreed with him!
5. Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534)
Thomas Cardinal Cajetan was a well respected Roman Catholic theologian, a philosopher, Master of the Dominican Order (1508-1518), and Roman Catholic Cardinal (from 1517 until his death). Cajetan is probably best known as the official Roman Catholic spokesman who spoke for the Roman Catholic church against the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. He was the Pope's Legate at Wittenberg. To say he was a Roman Catholic theological heavy weight would be a huge understatement.
In 1532, more than ten years after the Diet of Worms where Luther stood to face charges of heresy, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, a work which he dedicated to Pope Clement VII. What is important to this conversation is the fact that Cajetan excluded the entire apocrypha from his commentary. Note the title of his work: Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His exclusion of the apocrypha seems to indicate Cajetan did not accept the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament; and, in fact, this Roman Catholic heavy weight theologian actually rejected the apocrypha as canonical. He wrote in his work,
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus*. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

*The Prologus Galeatus, or Helmeted Preface, was written by Jerome in his preface to the Latin Vulgate.
Here we have this well respected Roman Catholic theologian, the Pope's Legate at Wittenberg, standing alongside Jerome in announcing the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings are not canonical, not inspired Scripture. He, like Jerome, states they may be considered canonical in the sense that they are worthwhile to be read as historical documents, but not as Scripture inspired by God.
6. Jean Driedo (1480-1535)
Also known as Johannes Driedo, he was a member of the Catholic University of Louvain. He is also known for his condemnation of Martin Luther's teachings in 1519. In his work, De Ecclesiasticis Scripturis et Dogmatibus, Driedo wrote concerning the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings:
“among the Hebrew are the stories of Judith and Tobias and Ecclesiasticus and first Maccabees, which books, although they keep and read them, yet they do not count them among the canonical books, but among the Apocrypha, not because they are false, but because their secret origin was not apparent to the entire Synagogue. But third and fourth Ezra, second Maccabees, the Hymn of the three children, and the stories of Susanna and Bela and the Dragon either they do not keep or even reject, and report that they were made up. But the Christian Church, on account of the authority of certain ancient scriptures which are read to make use of evidence from stories of this kind, reads these same scriptures with pious faith, and furthermore does not reject or despise them, even if it does not receive these books with authority equal to the canonical scriptures”
Dreido notes here that not only to the Jews not accept the apocrypha as divinely inspired Scripture; but the Roman Catholic church does not accept them as having “authority equal to the canonical Scriptures.”
These few examples, combined with the numerous other similar examples, show that contrary to the claims of Roman Catholic apologist, there was no unanimity of opinion among Roman Catholic scholars regarding the divine inspiration of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings either before, during, or after the Protestant Reformation. In other words, Roman Catholic church authorities did not universally accept the canonicity of the apocrypha.


The Septuagint and the Apocrypha
A common argument used by Roman Catholic apologists to support their belief in the inspiration of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings is, that they appear in the Septuagint, and the Jews of the first century – including Jesus and the Apostles – used the Septuagint. While this might sound like a convincing argument to some, the reality is that there is no evidence to support it.
There are currently thirty-nine extant Septuagint papyrus fragments dating from the second century B.C. up to the middle of the third century A.D. In all of those fragments, there is one mention of the sixth chapter of Baruch. There are no occurrences of Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, 3-4 Esdras, nor any other apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings. None. It isn't until the middle of the third century A.D. that any of these writings begin to be found in the Septuagint fragments.
That a single occurrence of Baruch appears in the single fragment from the second century B.C. explains why a few of the early Church fathers accepted Baruch as part of the canon, while at the same time rejecting every other apocryphal / deuterocanonical book.
In addition to the numerous extant fragments of the Septuagint, there are four manuscripts (in varying degrees of decay, and all from the fourth and fifth century A.D.) that contain large portions of the Septuagint, as well as the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings. These manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus (350 A.D.), Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), Codex Alexandrinus (450 A.D.), and Codex Ephraemi (450 A.D.). Aside from the relatively late dates of these copies of the Septuagint, there are other issues as well; primarily that Roman Catholic apologists consistently point to these four manuscripts as evidence that, 1: the Septuagint contained the apocrypha, and 2: That the inclusion of the apocrypha in these manuscripts points to the canonicity of the apocrypha. Let's take a look at the apocrypha as contained in these four manuscripts:
1. Codex Vaticanus: contains Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and the Letter to Jeremiah.
2. Codex Sinaiticus: contains Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 2 Esdras, the Epistle Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas.
3. Codex Alexandrinus: contains Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), the Psalms of Solomon, Psalm 151, 1 Epistle of Clement, 2 Epistle of Clement, the Epistle to Marcellinus, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
4. Codex Ephraemi (fragmented): contains Wisdom, and Sirach.
With the obvious differences between these four manuscripts, the immediate question is, which one is correct? And, if the inclusion of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings is indicative of their canonicity, then why doesn't the Roman Catholic church also consider 3 and 4 Maccabees, 3 and 4 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 & 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistle to Marcellinus as inspired Scripture as well? Clearly, the inclusion of these particular books in the Septuagint refutes the Roman Catholic argument.
I actually a Roman Catholic apologist why, if the apocrypha being included in the Septuagint indicated canonicity of the apocrypha, then why weren't these particular books considered as canon? The answer was: “because the Church determined the canon of Scripture by the Keys of the Kingdom and the discernment and guidance of the Holy Spirit.” When in doubt, fall back on the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church. It seems to be their version of the standard answer when faced with an indefensible position: “Because I said so!”
While that answer may satisfy the run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic, it does not satisfy those who have been sealed by and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and know better. The clearly broken line of the Roman Catholic so-called Apostolic succession of the popes, as well as the unscriptural doctrines promoted by the Roman Catholic church; not to mention the overwhelming evidence presented in all three parts of this series, all serve to refute that standard answer as given by the Roman Catholic apologists I have debated with.


Two Competing Canons
In first century Israel, the accepted canon of Scriptures were the same twenty-four books that are currently contained in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures), which are the exact same books as found in the Protestant Bible – albeit divided up somewhat differently. Those twenty-four books are:
1. The Five Books of Moses, known as the Chumash. This is the Torah, or The Law. We also know it as the Pentateuch. The five books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
2. The Eight Books of the Prophets, known as the Neviim. These eight books are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, and the Twelve (minor prophets) Trei-Assar.
3. The Eleven Books of the Writings, known as the Kesuvim. These books are Psalms (Tehilim), Proverbs (Mishlei), Job (Iyov), Song of Songs (Shir HaShirim), Ruth (Rus), Lamentations (Eicha), Ecclesiastes (Koheles), Esther, Daniel (Doniel), Ezra/Nehemia, and Chronicles (Divrei Hayamim).
Together, these books make up the Palestinian, or Hebrew Canon.
In Alexandria, however, the Alexandrian Jews, at some point, adopted a larger canon, an expanded canon. They accepted the same twenty-four books contained in the Hebrew Canon, but they added what we know refer to as the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings, which are 1 Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books comprise the Alexandrian, or Greek Canon.
The two questions that arise are, 1: Did the Hebrew Canon contain the apocrypha, and 2: Did the Alexandrian Canon contain the apocrypha? In answer to these questions we must be honest and say that there is no definitive evidence. There is no evidence the Alexandrian Canon contained the apocrypha prior to the third century, and that evidence is fragmentary at best. The earliest and most complete Alexandrian Canon comes to us from the fourth century. The Hebrew Canon, on the other hand, seems to have been generally accepted as fixed by the first century, as evidenced by the early Church fathers noted above, as well as the firsts century Jewish historian Josephus (37 A.D. - 100 A.D.) who, in addition to noting the same books of the Hebrew Scripture as exist today as accepted Hebrew Canon, indicates the Hebrew Canon was accepted as closed by 400 B.C. with the writing of Nehemiah (see the above reference to Flavius Josephus).
That the Hebrew Canon did not contain the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings is further evidenced by the canonical list of Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem which contains the standard Hebrew Canon, plus the book of Baruch (which has been noted and discussed above). If the Hebrew Canon of the first, second, or early third century (during Cyril's time) contained the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, it can be reasonably expected that he would have included them in his list of canonical Hebrew Scripture. Since he did not include them, it is reasonable to believe they were not considered inspired Hebrew Scriptures.
Additionally, when we look at the list of inspired Hebrew Scriptures provided by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria during the mid-fourth century, again we see the same list of accepted as inspired Hebrew Scriptures that Cyril provided; and again, excluding (with the exception of Baruch) the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings. Therefore, it is also reasonable to believe the Alexandrian Canon of Athanasius' time also did not contain the apocrypha / deuterocanonical writings. If it did, then it is reasonable to believe the Bishop of Alexandria, of all people, would have included them in his list of inspired canonical Hebrew Scriptures.
The facts here are irrefutable. There is absolutely no evidence to support the Roman Catholic church's claim that the Septuagint used by the first century Church, whether the Hebrew Canon or the Alexandrian Canon, contained the apocrypha. No evidence whatsoever.
There is another claim made by some Roman Catholic apologists, that Rabbical Jews met at Yavneh in 90 A.D., at the so-called Council of Jamnia, where two things were decided. The first was to remove the apocrypha / deuterocanonical books in order to remove all Messianic references that might pertain to Jesus (and thus remove proof of His Messiahship); and second, to officially solidify the Hebrew Canon. As with the other Roman Catholic claims mentioned above regarding the inclusion of the apocrypha in the Septuagint, there is no evidence to support these claims. In fact, there is ample evidence to refute them.
To begin with, removing the apocrypha in order to remove all Messianic prophecies doesn't even make sense. There are no Messianic prophecies in the apocrypha, because none of the apocryphal writings were composed by Old Testament prophets! Additionally, there are numerous Old Testament Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Removing the apocrypha would do nothing to negate these prophecies. Furthermore, the “Council of Jamnia” did not meet to discuss the Hebrew Canon. The whole idea that they did is nothing more than a myth. If there was a meeting in Yavneh (I say “if” because many scholars are skeptical such a “council” took place), they met only to discuss the merits of a few books of the Old Testament, namely Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Proverbs and Ezekiel. But not to determine the Hebrew Canon. Those who are promoting the idea that Jamnia determined the Hebrew Canon in 90 A.D., are simply misrepresenting history in order to support their false beliefs concerning the canon of Scripture.

The Acceptance of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Writings

Although it has been established that the Old Testament Hebrew Canon was closed by 400 B.C. (and not at the so-called Council of Jamnia” in 90 A.D.), and that there is no evidence to support the belief that the Septuagint of used by the Jews from the first century up to the middle of the fourth century; clearly at some point the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings made their way into the Septuagint by the middle of the fourth century, and by the end of the fourth century, in 397 A.D. Augustine and two minor Church councils accepted at least some of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as Scripture.
There are three notable early Church fathers who did indeed accept the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as Scripture. There are, however, some problems with the reliability of these three with regard to what does and does not comprise the accepted canonical Scriptures, and we will look at each of these early Church fathers, as well as those problems.
1. Clement of Alexandria (c.150A.D.-c.215A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria is quite often quoted by Roman Catholic apologists as proof the First Century Septuagint not only contained the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings, but that they were accepted as inspired Scripture. However, Clement also quoted from the following: The Epistle of Barnabas, I Clement, Tatian's Discourse to the Greeks, The Chronologies of Cassianus, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Traditions of Matthias, the Preaching of Peter, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 3rd and 4th Esdras. Therefore, according to the logic of the Roman Catholic apologists, these books must also have been included in the Septuagint, and must therefore also be accepted as inspired Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, does not accept these books as canonical, therefore, the argument presented by the Roman Catholic apologists is not a valid argument.
2. Tertullian (c.155A.D.-c.240A.D.)
Tertullian is another alleged proof of the inclusion of the apocrypha in the Septuagint and it's is acceptance of inspired Scripture. However, not only did Tertullian quote from the apocrypha, but in his works On the Resurrection of the Flesh and Letter on Patience, he quoted from the book of Pseudo-Ezekiel, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Testament of Job. All three of these are Hebrew pseudepigraphal works. Tertullian also quoted from the Epistle of Barnabas (in his work, On Penitence). Additionally, in his work, On Female Fashion, Tertullian referred to the Hebrew pseudepigraphal Book of I Enoch as “Holy Scripture.” (This, by the way, was the same work [book 1, chap.1] in which Tertullian claimed women were not created in the image of God, were the devil's gateway, caused Adam to sin when the devil could not, and were responsible for the death of Christ. Nice guy.)
Again, following the reasoning of the Roman Catholic apologists, because Tertullian quoted from the above works, we should be not only accepting the apocrypha as inspired Scripture, but also the Hebrew pseudepigraphal works he quoted from as well.
Later in his life, Tertullian abandoned the Christian faith and adopted Montanism, which, among other things, teaches that prophecy and revelation from God could come through the unintelligible babbling of its founder, Montanus, and his leading female prophets. This move resulted in Tertullian being branded as a heretic by the Church.
Although Tertullian may have been a great defender of some historic Christian doctrine, he is hardly the man to place on a pedestal as a model of Church orthodoxy, much less an authority on the canon of inspired Scripture.
3. Codex Claromontanus (about A.D. 400)
The Codex Claromontus, written about 400 A.D., is a Greek-Latin manuscript of the New Testament. It too is sometimes referenced by Roman Catholic apologists to support the inclusion of the apocrypha. Although it contains the New Testament, Codex Claromontus also contains a list of those books considered to be canonical. This list contains: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua of Nun, Judges, Ruth , Kings (contains 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles), the Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther, and Job. The list also contains the apocryphal books of Tobias, Judith, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, 4th Maccabees, Wisdom and the Wisdom of Jesus (Ecclesiasticus / Sirach).
The New Testament list of canonical Scriptures contains the standard accepted books of the New Testament. However, the list also includes the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas; while excluding Hebrews, Philippians and 1&2 Thessalonians. Also notably missing from the apocryphal Old Testament books are 1&2 Esdras, and Baruch.
Again, following the reasoning of the Roman Catholic apologists, we should now accept 4th Maccabees, the New Testament pseudepigrapha noted above, and we should reject 1&2 Esdras, Baruch, Hebrews, Philippians, and 1&2 Thessalonians. By now, just using the three sources noted by Roman Catholic apologists, we should have, at best, a very confused canon.
3. Augustine (354-450)
Augustine was an early Church father who, at least for the purposes of this article, seems to have been responsible for the inclusion of the apocrypha in the Old Testament canon; and, he is probably the most often used source by Roman Catholic apologists to support their contention that the apocrypha has always been part of the Septuagint, and therefore, always considered to be inspired Scripture. As fine a theologian as he undoubtedly was, however, he was neither inspired nor infallible, and he was not without his problems as well when it comes to the subject of what is and what is not inspired Scripture.
Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo (now you know why the Council of Hippo accepted his list of canonical Scriptures), and in his work, On Christian Doctrine (book ii, chapter 8), written about 397 A.D., Augustine wrote the following concerning the Old Testament canon:
“Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.”
This is the standard list of Old Testament Scriptures accepted by both the Council of Hippo (397) and the Council of Cathage (397) (both heavily influenced by Augustine) and the Council of Trent in 1546, where the Roman Catholic church fixed forever the accepted (by Rome) list of canonical Scriptures. It is fairly clear then why most, if not all, Roman Catholic apologists point to Augustine as “proof” of the Church's acceptance of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as inspired Scripture.
As pointed out in this article, however, the Church hardly accepted them as inspired Scripture, and in fact, did not accept them as such prior to Augustine's list and the resulting councils at Carthage and Hippo. Nor did the Church accept them universally in the years between Augustine and Trent, nor after Trent. Additionally, the Roman Catholic apologist's penchant for Augustine seems to based upon a somewhat sanitized understanding of him.
Although Augustine clearly states in his work, On Christian Doctrine, the canonicity of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings; in his work, City of God, he not only contradicts himself and states the books of Judith and Maccabees are not canonical, but he also quotes from 3rd and 4th Esdras which no one accepts as canonical! (see City of God, book 18, chapters 26 and 36)
Additionally, Augustine readily accepted the supernatural myth regarding the origin of the Septuagint that had been put forth in the pseudepigraphal Letter of Aristeas, which relates how each of the translators did their work secluded from the others, and upon checked their work each morning discovered they had translated each section word for word identical with the others. This allegedly proved the inspiration of the Septuagint. While it was popular during Augustine's time to accept this myth as fact, no one today accepts it as such. That such a pillar of the early Church would swallow such a fantastic myth as being factual, does not speak well for him.
At best, the testimony of Augustine is ambiguous, and at worst, it seems to indicate he either had an agenda to promote (either for himself or the current pope at the time), or, that Augustine was not as impressive a scholar as we think of him today – something that is born out in the letters between Augustine and Jerome, wherein Jerome questions the extent and validity of Augustine's scholarship. It is also interesting to note that of all the ancient Church fathers of that time period, Augustine is the only one to specifically cite the current Roman Catholic apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings as canonical, and go against the commonly accepted belief that the Hebrew canon consisted of only 22 or 24 books; instead setting the number at 44. The only one to do so.
As can be clearly seen in the evidence presented in this, the second part of this article series, the Roman Catholic apologetic appeal to the early Church fathers as proof of the inclusion of the apocrypha in the first, second, or third century Septuagint simply does not work. Their argument is, to be blunt, invalid. The earliest Church fathers rejected the apocrypha, and those of Augustine's time and later are so insistent as to be ambiguous at best. The acceptance of spurious works, myths, and heretical doctrines by these later Church fathers, adds to the unreliability of them as witnesses to the acceptance of the apocrypha as inspired Scripture.
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 see in part three.
Decree of the Council of Trent (1546)
As an interesting and noteworthy side note, we find in the Decree of the Council of Trent, regarding the canon that was fixed at Trent in 1546, the following:
“(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:
“Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.
“Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.
“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
Note that last line. It clearly states that those who do not accept the apocrypha as set forth by Trent are to be cursed. Bearing in mind the large number of early Church fathers, and early Church councils, and those who accepted the canon as set forth by them; the only conclusion that one can come to is the Roman Catholic church, at Trent, effectively cursed the vast majority of the early Church, including many of the early Popes and other early Church leaders.

Building a proper understanding of Scripture is a lot like building a fence. In fact, it is a lot like many projects one does around the home, garage or yard. But since I need a fence, I'll use that analogy.
What do I need to build my fence? I need four-by-fours, two-by-fours, and hog panels. This is a utilitarian fence, not an entry in Better Homes and Gardens. So I go to the store and purchase my supplies. I now have a stack of four-by-fours, two-by-fours, and hog panels; as well as a box of nails, some screws, and a box of fencing staples. In essence, I have a fence. It is not yet assembled, but I do have a fence. Now I need the proper tools: hammer, screw driver, and pliers (because you always need pliers), and I need a post hole digger. So I head to the shed and gather up my tools; and I need an accurately drawn up plan with proper measurements, etc. Once I have that, I mark off where the posts will go, sink the posts, attach the two-by-fours, and then put up the hog panels, and voila! I have an assembled fence.

However, the potential for disaster is never far away. Therefore, to avoid disaster I must do three things. They are:

1. I must have the proper tools (I can't pound staples and nails with a tape measure)
2. I must have at least a basic understanding of my tools and how they are properly used.
3. I must actually get up and do the work, otherwise I will simply have a pile of fence but not a properly assembled and useful fence.
“But how does this relate to theology?” you may ask. I know I would! To properly understand Scripture, and thus have a proper understanding of theology, one must follow the exact same steps. The fence is the Bible, and just as a properly built fence can protect your property; a properly understood Bible can protect you spiritually from a great many spiritual dangers, primarily the twin dangers of false doctrines and false teachers.

So, the first thing you have to do is gather up your supplies, namely, a Bible. And get a good one. There are many to choose from, some good (I like the NASB, NKJV, and ESV) and there are some bad ones, such as The New World Translation, the Joseph Smith Translation, and The Message. I won't go into all of the various factors that go into finding a good Bible, but try to stay with either a “word for word” translation or perhaps a “thought for thought” translation. But stay away from paraphrases, and this is important, stay away from study Bibles produced by individuals. At least for the time being. While there are some very very good ones, there are some very very bad ones. So until you are well grounded in Scripture, stay away from them.

Now you need your tools, and you need the proper tools to do the job. They are, in order of importance:

1. Prayer, prayer, and more prayer. Talk to the Lord and ask Him to help you to understand just what your are reading. Trust in the Holy Spirit to guide you in your studies, believe me, He will. But also understand, the vast majority of Scripture is self-explanatory. There are no “hidden” meanings, there are no “Bible codes,” and there is no need for extra or special revelation. Just read the Bible, and read it as you would any other book. There will be parts that are literal, parts that are figurative such as analogies, parts that are poetic, parts that are prophetic, and parts that are simply historical. And they are all obvious to the reader.
2. A basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics. A big word that simply means interpretation, or proper understanding. The basic rules of good biblical hermeneutics are:

A) The Bible interprets the Bible. You don't have to go to an outside source to interpret it for you.
B) The explicit passages interpret the implicit passages. If an implicit passages seems to contradict an explicit passage, understand that it doesn't really contradict. You are simply interpreting the implicit passage incorrectly.
C) Context is everything. To understand a particular passage of Scripture, look at the various contexts in which it is written. Look at the immediate context first. By this I mean the passages immediately before the passage, and those immediately after it. Next, look at the extended context. Do this by reading the entire chapter, and/or the entire book. Third, look at the cultural and historical context. What would the passage most obviously mean to someone from the same culture and time period within which it was written? Obviously this is going to take some dedication and some work. But just as with building a good sturdy fence, if you want something that will last and withstand attacks against it, you're going to have to work hard and do it properly.
D) And finally, understand that there are no contradictions (if you find one, read it again, and follow rules A-C); and there are no real errors. Yes, to be honest, you may find some minor textual variants, however, they are, as I said, minor, and they will not change the accuracy of any biblical doctrine.
3. You will need the proper tools. It is always helpful to have a knowledge of biblical Greek and Hebrew, but that is not always possible. Fortunately, there are a number of good reference works available – many online and free for download – that are available. First, a good word concordance, especially a Strong's or a Young's concordance. Both are geared for the King James Version, but that should not be a problem. It is also helpful to have at hand a good lexicon and/or expository dictionary. Two of the best are the Thayer's Greek Lexicon and the Vine's Expository Dictionary of Greek and Hebrew Words. A good Bible dictionary (such as the Holman's Bible Dictionary), a good Bible handbook (Unger's, Halley's, or Smith's), a good Bible encyclopedia (such as Nelson's) and possible a Bible Atlas (such as Moody's). All of these tools will help you to understand the original meaning of the various words found in Scripture, as well as the various customs, cultures, peoples, and lands of the Bible. This will aid you immensely in understanding the historical contexts of the Bible.

4. And last, you must actually pick up those tools and use them properly. You must pick up your Bible, and read it and study it daily, and do so properly if you want to be well grounded in it. Many people read their Bible through the focus of their own biases, their own preconceived ideas and presuppositions. Remember this final rule of proper Bible reading and studying. Write it down on the very first page of your Bible. Never forget it. And that final rule is: “Never change the meaning of Scripture to fit what you already believe, but rather, change what you believe to fit the Scripture.”

By understanding and following the basic outlines described in this article, you can have a strong, utilitarian, long lasting and protective fence; or you can have a strong, utilitarian, long lasting, and protective grasp of the Bible; or both!