What you are about to read is really nothing more than documented, easily found, actual history. It is not, however, the altered and somewhat fictional revisionist "history" put forth by the Roman Catholic Church.

Although this is technically not a “false teaching” since it doesn’t actually pertain to doctrine, I feel it is an important issue to address, as well as one that in some ways lays the foundation of what I hope will be a continuing series of articles addressing the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks to the Roman Catholic church, there is a misconception that is commonly held by almost every person. That misconception is that the Roman Catholic Church and the catholic Church are the same thing. This is untrue, as they are two very different things. The word catholic simply means universal. That’s all. Nothing less, and nothing more. When you see the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” it means the “Universal Roman Church”; and the phrase “catholic Church” means the “universal Church.”

A few things I'd like to point out. First, you may have noticed one obvious difference between the two phrases, and that is the use of a capital “C” versus a lower case “c”. The capital “C” in Roman Catholic Church is a title, a noun. “Roman Catholic Church” is the title of a particular church, one which finds it home and origin in Rome. The lower case “c” in catholic Church is an adjective, not a title or noun. As already noted, it means “universal” and it describes an attribute of the Christian Church. The term “Christian Church” is also a title of a particular church, namely the church that is made up of Christians, or followers of Jesus Christ. This means that every single believer over the past 2,000 years, belongs to the catholic, or universal Christian Church. The use of a capital “C” or a lower case “c” differentiates these two churches.

The second point is that as also already noted, the Roman Catholic Church has its origins in Rome. Not modern day Rome, but the Roman Empire, which existed in full from 753 BC to 476 AD. The Roman Catholic Church is the modern day remnant of the religious branch of the Roman Empire. Prior to 380 AD, when Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church existed alongside the official pagan Roman state religion. Also prior to 380 AD, this pagan Roman religion was subsidized by the state. The state paid for and built the Roman temples and places for the worship of their many gods, as well as supporting all the pagan Roman priests. In 380 AD all of that changed and Christianity became the official state religion. In short, this meant all the pagan Roman priests, and etc., were out of a job. They would no longer be subsidized and supported by the state. In order to maintain that support, the pagan priests became “Christian” priests and the pagan houses of worship became “Christian” churches, ostensibly for the worship of the Christian God, Yahweh.

Following their incursion into the Christian Church, the Romanists began to place themselves in positions of control, beginning with the leader of the Christian church in Rome. This continued on throughout the years, decades, and centuries until about 1563 by which time the professing Christian Church had become almost entirely Romanized, although, there was still a remnant of faithful Christians. Beginning in the 15th century, a reformation of the Christian Church began when men such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus boldly stood against the Romanization of the Church. Of course, the Romanists denounced them as heretics and sought to murder them. They succeeded in murdering Hus, but failed with Wycliffe. So incensed by his efforts to bring the Church back under the leadership of Christ rather than the leadership of the Pope, that after he died of natural causes, the Romanists dug him and burned his bones and scattered the ashes in a river! Talk about vindictiveness!

From 1545 to 1563 the Romanists held the infamous Council of Trent, which they used to officially establish many of the unbiblical doctrines they sought to impose upon the Christian Church. Of these, one of the most heretical is the doctrine of salvation by faith plus works, which is a direct contradiction of Biblical teaching. In fact, they went so far as to curse anyone who taught justification was only by faith. Of course, since God Himself teaches justification by faith in His Holy Word, the Romanists effectively cursed God with their decree. At this point the Roman Catholic Church, as a separate church from the catholic Christian Church, was born. Just as before 380 AD, there are now two separate and distinct churches, one Christian and one Roman. Removing the word “Roman” from the title of their church, the Romanists have blurred the line of distinction between the catholic Church and the now called Catholic Church. This is the same tactic later used by the Mormons when they changed the name of their church from “The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints”, to simply “The Church of Jesus Christ.” Both groups are attempting to make themselves appear to be Christians; but the reality is, they are not. They are false religions. I will admit, however, that simply changing the name of their church in order to deceive people into thinking they are Christian is far better than their previous methods. These previous methods included theft, torture, slavery, rape, sexual and physical abuse, other forms of intense oppression, war, and even murder. All used by the non-Christian Roman Catholic Church at various times over the past 1,000 years in their ongoing effort to force people to convert to Roman Catholicism.

Please understand the difference between these two different churches, and do not allow yourself to be deceived by the Roman Catholic Church. It is decidedly NOT Christian. Please do not mistake them for Christian. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a different gospel, one of salvation by faith PLUS works; a different god, one who demands people pay at least partially for their own sins in purgatory -- both financially, as well as through physical suffering; and a false Jesus, one who did not die once for the sins of many as God stated in His Word (Heb.9:26-28; 10:10; 1Pet.3:18; Rom.6:10), but who must be re-sacrificed virtually daily by Roman priests around the world (CCC 1367, 1376, 1382).*




*Note: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, via both tradition and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the Mass is a true propitiatory sacrifice. Though semantically not a second sacrifice, not a re-sacrifice, it is, nonetheless, a perpetual sacrifice. In other words, for the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus Christ is continually on the cross shedding His blood as a perpetual sacrifice for sin. And though they claim in their teaching that it is an unbloody sacrifice, the fact that they believe the cup holds the actual physical blood of Jesus refutes that claim.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

Did Pope Francis Give A False Gospel?
By Robert Tuttle

Why I Left The Roman Catholic Church

By Dudley Davis

The following is a summary of why I am now a Reformed Protestant and no longer a Roman Catholic. My decision to leave Roman Catholicism was not an easy one. I will say it took courage to do so; I was turning my back on the faith I had lived by all life. However I acted on my conscience especially after I read the New Testament. As I read the New Testament I began to see that many of the things I was taught to believe as a Roman Catholic were not only not biblically supported, but many were in direct contradiction to the scriptures. Because of those contradictions is why I initially left the Roman Catholic church. However as I studied further the history of the early church and the Reformation of the 16th century I realized that contrary to what I was taught as a Roman Catholic, that Protestantism and the Protestant church communities left the catholic church, meaning universal church founded by Jesus Christ; I began to believe that the opposite was really true. I began to see that Roman Catholicism drifted from the true Gospel and true Church by adding many things that were not supported in scripture and as I said even contradicted the scriptures. I found that the 16th century reformers who were also Roman Catholic like I was really returned the church communities to the Gospel told in the scriptures and the early Church founded by Christ and the apostles.

I began to see fully as did the Reformers who were, like me, also Roman Catholic and studied the scriptures that from a Roman Catholic perspective, the concept of saving faith is far removed from the biblical teaching of commitment to and simple trust in Christ alone for salvation.

As a Reformed Protestant Christian, a Presbyterian, I know now I am saved by God’s unmerited grace. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

When I was a Catholic I was required to work by meriting the graces needed for salvation. The RCC teaches we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2010).

A Reformed Protestant Christian is saved for good works. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10).
On the contrary a Roman Catholic is saved by good works. Roman Catholics are taught that the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation (CCC 1129).

I am no longer a Roman Catholic because I know by reading the scriptures, God’s word; what Rome teaches is contradictory to the scriptures regarding our salvation.

I am a Presbyterian today and a Reformed Protestant because the Reformed faith teaches the truth of salvation according to the Scriptures. The Reformed Protestant faith teaches that Salvation is ALL of Christ. No one may ascribe their repenting and believing (even partly) to their own wisdom, humility sound judgment or good sense … but to Christ alone (1 Cor 1:29, 30). Salvation is of the Lord.

We affirm salvation it is by Christ alone – it’s all of grace. We reject anything beyond this for salvation: Good will, works, obedience and merit add nothing to our just standing before God (Rom 9:16; Gal 3:3; Eph 2:9). Neither these nor anything else can help us attain or maintain our just standing before God. It only as we are joined to Christ by the Holy Spirit that we have a living faith and are declared righteous in His sight – and all our sins, both now and forever are forgiven on account of His name alone.

The Reformed Protestant theology teaches Justification is by faith alone for we cannot merit salvation; if we could Christ would not have had to die on Calvary to save all who believe. However the process of justification coincides with sanctification whereby we do good works because we are Justified in the righteousness of Christ. The point is that we must distinguish between good works and meritorious works, there are no meritorious works we could do to achieve salvation. We are saved by faith alone and because of our faith alone we do good works.

I am today a Reformed Protestant, a member of the Presbyterian church and no longer a Roman Catholic because I know that it is by grace alone we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. I know this is true because the scriptures teach this and they as the Word of God are our only and final authority, not the bishop of Rome, the pope.

As a Protestant I give all glory and honor to God alone and no other. ~ Dudley Davis ~

Pope Francis places flowers near a statue of Mary as he prays in the Little Chapel of the Apparitions in Fatima. PAUL HARING | CNS

In May of this year, Pope Francis traveled to Fatima, Portugal for the centennial celebration of the alleged appearance of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to three children in 1917. The Roman Catholic church claims an angel appeared three times to the three children, Lucia Dos Santos (age 9), and her cousins Francisco Marto (age 8) and Jacinta Marto (age 6), beginning in 1916; followed by six appearances of Mary to the children (plus an additional appearance of Mary accompanied by Jesus to Lucia after she had become a nun).
During the ceremony, Pope Francis made an offering of a silver vase containing 24 karat gold roses to a statue of Mary, after which Francis bowed to the statue and prayed,
“Hail Holy Queen, Blessed Virgin of Fatima, Lady of Immaculate Heart, our refuge and our way to God!” Francis continued, referring to himself as a “prophet and messenger,” “With your hands lifted in prayer to the Lord, draw all people together into one human family. … Hail, Mother of the Lord, Virgin Mary, Queen of the Rosary of Fatima! … you are the image of the Church robed in paschal light, you are the honor of our people, you are the victory over every assault of evil. … teach us, in this valley of joys and sorrows, the eternal truths that the Father reveals to the little ones. Show us the strength of your protective mantle. In your Immaculate Heart, be the refuge of sinners and the way that leads to God. In union with my brothers and sisters, in faith, in hope and in love, I entrust myself to you. In union with my brothers and sisters, through you, I consecrate myself to God, O Virgin of the Rosary of Fatima. And at last, enveloped in the Light that comes from your hands, I will give glory to the Lord for ever and ever. Amen.”1

At this point it is necessary to be clear on the definitions of the terms worship and veneration, so as to avoid any confusion regarding what the pope did at Fatima. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary website, the term worship refers to reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also: an act of expressing such reverence; or, [the] extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem; or, [the] excessive admiration of or devotion to a person. Synonyms (words which mean the same thing) for “worship” include: adoration, reverence, and veneration. Thesaurus.com adds to this list of synonyms: devotion, adulation, and reverence. Not surprisingly, the meaning of the word “veneration” is: “veneration early 15c., from M.Fr. veneration, from L. venerationem (nom. veneratio) 'reverence,' from venerari 'to worship, revere'.” (according to Thesaurus.com).
Clearly, by making offerings and prayer to the statue of Mary, and by extension, Mary herself, the pope was worshiping Mary, the mother of Jesus. This is a form of idolatry; and again we turn to the dictionary to have a clear understanding of the term. Idolatry is defined as the worship of idols; or, the extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone. Synonyms include idolization, idol worship, adulation, adoration, reverence, and veneration. Therefore, when someone offers extreme admiration, love, reverence, adulation, adoration, or veneration of a thing or a person, then that someone is engaging in idolatry, the worship of an idol. And again, this is what Pope Francis was doing in Fatima.
God Himself spoke very clearly on this subject in Exodus 20:4-5 when He said, “4'You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,'” [emphasis added].

This is the exact same thing the children of Israel did in Exodus 32 when they had Aaron, the brother of Moses, fashion for them an idol to worship in the form of a golden calf; and just as Pope Francis did, they also made an offering to their idol. (verse 6). And what was the Lord's response to their idol worship? The Lord's wrath burned hot against them for they had corrupted themselves (verses 7-10); and they, like Francis, sinned greatly. (verse 30)
Scripture also speaks clearly regarding God's response to such unrighteousness in Romans 1:18-25, which states, “18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” [emphasis added]

Idolatry is an abomination to the Lord (Deuteronomy 7:26; Isaiah 44:9-20; Galatians 5:19-21), and there is no other way to describe it; but perhaps just as abominable is the prayer Francis made to the statue of Mary. Note again the words of his prayer:

“Hail Holy Queen, Blessed Virgin of Fatima, Lady of Immaculate Heart, our refuge and our way to God!” This is in direct contradiction to Jesus' words in John 14:6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” There is no mention of Mary being the way to God, and this is because only Jesus is the way to God. But rather than adhering to Scripture, to the words of the Savior Himself, Pope Francis rejects Jesus as the way to God, and replaces God the Son, the Creator, with the created saying Mary, a mere human, as the way to God.

Francis then goes on to not only deny Jesus again, but God the Father as well, and also the Holy Spirit, when he prays, “Hail, Mother of the Lord, Virgin Mary, Queen of the Rosary of Fatima! … you are the victory over every assault of evil. … teach us, in this valley of joys and sorrows, the eternal truths that the Father reveals to the little ones.” Again, this contrary to God's Holy Word. It is not Mary who is the source of “victory over every assault of evil,” but rather God Himself, through Jesus Christ as His inspired Word tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:56-57: “56The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Nor is Mary the one to teach us “the eternal truths that the Father reveals,” as that role is reserved for God the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth. The Apostle John wrote under the inspiration of God, “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17) and, “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”
The Pope goes on to pray, “Show us the strength of your protective mantle. In your Immaculate Heart, be the refuge of sinners and the way that leads to God.” Once again, Francis removes God from His rightful place, and replaces Him with Mary. Psalm 46:1 states, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” and Psalm 91:2 reiterates this with, “I will say of the Lord, 'He is my refuge and my fortress; my God, in Him I will trust.'” God is our refuge, not Mary. As sinners in desperate need of a savior, we do not turn to another human being. Scripture does not tell us to seek protection, strength, or refuge in Mary. On the contrary, Scripture tells us our refuge is in God Himself! (cf. Ex. 33:22; Deut. 33:27; Ps. 18:2; Ps. 27:5; Ps. 31:20; Ps. 71:3; Prov. 14:26; Prov. 18:10; Is. 25:4; Zech. 9:12; Jere. 16:19).
Additionally, Francis repeats his false teaching that it is Mary's “immaculate heart” that is the way to God. As noted before, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus. Not Mary, but only Jesus. Period. (John 14:6)
Francis finishes his prayer by entrusting himself not to God, and not to Jesus, but to Mary. He “consecrates” himself to God, but not through Jesus, but again through Mary; and he prays he will be “enveloped” in the Light that comes not from God, but from Mary. Three times in succession in the conclusion of his prayer to Mary, Francis elevates Mary above God and above Jesus, similar to the statement of Satan to Eve in the Garden of Eden: “You will be like God.” (Genesis 3:5)
Throughout his prayer to Mary, Pope Francis blasphemes God repeatedly through his anti-biblical and anti-God, and anti-Jesus Christ statements. They are, however, completely in line with his idolatry, which is amply expressed in making offerings to the graven image of another human, then bowing to it and praying to it. Mary is, for Pope Francis, his golden calf.


1. The pope's entire prayer is too long to include here, but may be read at the Vatican's official website at, https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/prayers/documents/papa-francesco_preghiere_20170512_fatima.html)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Are salvation and justification by faith alone, or faith plus works? The answer to this question varies from person to person, and even more so, between two religious groups, those who hold to a monergistic view of salvation, and those who hold to a synergistic view of salvation. In the synergistic group are found the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and Liberal or “Progressive” Protestants, and some who hold to an Arminian view of salvation. In the monergistic group are found Conservative Protestants, Reformed Protestants, some Presbyterians, some Baptists, and some Lutherans. The most recognizable division on this matter, however, is between Monergistic Protestants and Roman Catholics. Before we delve too far into this, we should establish some biblical definitions of both salvation and justification.

Salvation, as defined by the Bible, is the deliverance from sin and the penalty for that sin, which is eternal damnation; as well as entrance into the Kingdom of God for all eternity. (Mat.19:24-25; Phil.1:19; Acts 16:30-31; Rom.6:23).

Justification, as defined by the Bible, is to be declared righteous by God, based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. (Rom.3:21-26; Rom.5:18-19; 2 Cor.5:21).

Roman Catholicism teaches that both salvation and justification are initially by the grace of God alone, and for the glory of God alone (Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria). On this point, both Roman Catholicism and Monergistic Protestantism are in complete agreement. The differences between the two revolve around the role of faith and works, and how these two points figure into salvation and justification. While both groups believe faith and works are essential elements of salvation, Roman Catholicism teaches that faith and works result in salvation (and justification); while Monergistic Protestantism teaches that faith results in salvation (and justification), and that good works are both the result and the evidence of salvation (and justification). Therefore, the elements (grace, faith, works) that make up salvation and justification are the same within both Roman Catholicism and Monergistic Protestantism. It is the placement of these elements, and what these elements do with regard to salvation and justification, that are the basis of the disagreement between the two groups.

Like the Monergistic Protestants, the Roman Catholic church teaches that salvation (and justification) is a free gift from God, by the grace of God, and is not “earned.” However, unlike Monergistic Protestants, Roman Catholicism teaches salvation – and thus justification – can be lost. This results in those adhering to this doctrine constantly striving by their works to either maintain their salvation, or regain it once it has been lost. This places the impetus for their salvation, or at least the maintaining of their salvation (by performing good works), on man rather than God. This results in the synergistic view of salvation taught by Roman Catholicism.

This of course begs the question, can man lose his salvation (and justification) once he has attained it by the grace of God? Roman Catholicism and other synergistic faiths say yes; while Monergistic Protestantism says no, man cannot lose salvation once it has been freely given by God.

Monergistic Protestantism teaches that salvation, and as a result justification, is the free gift of God, and that man plays no direct role in attaining it. It is all the result of the grace God alone, through faith alone (with said faith being given by God and not mustered up by man), in Jesus Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, and never by works. Monergistic Protestants refer to this as Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. Grace Alone, Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, for the Glory of God Alone. This core belief of Monergistic Protestantism is clearly stated in Ephesians 2:8-10, “8)For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9)not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10)For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.”

Of course, this is not the only verse in Scripture which teaches salvation (and justification) by faith totally apart from works. We see this taught in:

Romans 3:23-26, “23)since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24)they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25)whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26)it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”

Romans 9:30, “What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith”

Philippians 3:9, “and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.”

2 Timothy 1:9, “who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”

Titus 3:5, “he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

Romans 9:16, “So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.”

See also in: Gen.15:6; Hab.2:4; Jn 1:12; Jn 3:18; Jn 5:24; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Rom.1:17; Rom.3:20-22,27-31; Rom.4:1-25; Rom.5:2,9-10,18-19; Rom.6:23; Rom.8:33; Rom.9:33; Rom.10:4,9-10; 1 Cor.1:29-30; 1 Cor.9:29; 2 Cor.5:21; Gal.2:16,20; Gal.3:5-6,8,10-14,22,24; Gal. 5:4,6; Eph.1:7; Eph.2:5; 1 Tim.1:16; Heb.10:38; Heb.11:4; 1Jn.1:8-9; Rev.5:9

As can be seen through these multitude of passages, salvation (and justification) is by grace through faith, and never, ever, by works that we might do. As Paul clearly states, “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” (Rom.5:15-17).

Paul goes on to clarify, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Rom.11:6). Salvation and justification must be grace through faith, and never by works. It must be, because if it is by works, then the grace of God is nullified, and Christ died needlessly (Gal.2:21). “For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us)” (Rom.4:16).

You see, Christ was delivered up and crucified because of our sin, and He was raised from the dead for our justification! Those who have faith in Him have been justified by His shed blood! His righteousness, therefore, was imputed to those who have faith in Him! Therefore, because those who have faith in Jesus Christ have had His righteousness imputed to them and are thereby justified (made righteous in the eyes of God), “there is, therefore, now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” No Condemnation! (Rom.4:11,25;5:9;8:1)

But where do works fit into all of this? According to Roman Catholicism, works are necessary for salvation, either gaining it or maintaining it or regaining it, once it is lost. In contrast, Monergistic Protestantism teaching is in line with the many, many passages (as noted above) that state works are not necessary for salvation. They are, however, the result of, and evidence of, true salvation.

James writes in his epistle, that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” It is this verse that Roman Catholicism points to, to support its faith plus works doctrine of salvation and justification; and taking this verse, by itself and out of the immediate context of the rest of the chapter and other passages, seems to validate the Roman Catholic position. However, when taken in its proper context, it quickly shows that this is not the case.

Remember Ephesians 2:10 which states, “For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.”

This passage is written to Christians. Not to unbelievers, but to those who have already been saved and who have already been justified. Our Lord prepared works for His followers beforehand, and those works are “to be our way of life.” Looking at the second chapter of James, in its entirety, it is clear that not only is James giving instruction to those who profess to be Christians, but he is telling them that a mere profession of faith, devoid of charitable works, is a “dead” faith, a false faith. In other words, faith that is not evidenced by charitable good works is not a true saving faith, and those who profess to be Christian, but do not present any evidence of their conversion, are not saved. They are not Christians. Paul also teaches this. In Romans 7:4, he instructs Christians – again, not unbelievers but Christians – that they are to “bear fruit for God.” This fruit is charitable good works, which, according to Paul, are not only prepared by God for us to do, but we are enabled by Him to do them for “His good pleasure.” (Phil.2:13).

Paul goes so far as to tell his readers that his own good works are not due to his abilities, but rather due to “the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor.15:10). That we recognize these good works and our ability to perform them is important. We must realize that they are the result of faith, and not of our own sinful desires or abilities because, as Paul states, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Rom.14:23); and Paul gives himself as an example: “even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.” (Phil.3:4-9)

If we do works for our own self-serving reasons, then we are not saved, and we can expect nothing but hell and the full wrath of God. If, however, we are doing them as the result of our faith, we can fully expect our reward of eternal life with the Lord in heaven (Rom.2:6-16). Therefore, our salvation and justification is not due to any good works we may do, as Roman Catholicism teaches, but as a direct result of our salvation. First God calls us to salvation. Then He gifts us with the faith we need to come to him (and without which we would never come to Him), then, after we are saved, we “do deeds consistent with repentance” (Acts 26:20) – deeds which are evidence of our salvation. A lack of charitable good works for the Lord is evidence of our lack of salvation. (see also Rom.8:4; 2 Cor.5:17-18)

This brings us to the issue of salvation. Can one lose their salvation as taught by Roman Catholicism, and therefore must perform good works in order to avoid losing it? According to Scripture, the answer is a very clear, no. Every person who is truly born again of the Spirit and is united with Christ by faith, will be kept secure in their salvation by the power of God until such a time as they go to be with Him.

Scripture tells us in 1 Peter 2:24, that Jesus Christ bore our sins and the result of His sacrifice of atonement by His blood is that we are free from sins. The purpose of this is that we might live for righteousness. (cf. Rom.3:25). By His wounds the true believer has been healed/saved. (see also Heb.2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 1 Jn 4:10; Acts 20:28; Rev.5:9)

Once saved, we are a new creation. The old person has passed away, and we are a new person in Christ Jesus – IF, we have truly and fully committed ourselves to Him. We cannot live with one foot in the Church and the other foot in the world. We cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve both the world and the Lord. In order to serve the world we must be of the world, and that the true believer cannot be. The true believer cannot maintain a friendship with the world. Doing so places one at enmity with God.
(see 2 Cor.5:17; Mat.6:24; James 4:4; Jn.17:16-26; 1 Jn. 2:15-17).

Christ's blood provides a complete and total atonement for the sins of every true believer. One of the most well-known verses in Scripture is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life.” Notice the sentence stops after the phrase, “have eternal life.” It does not say, “have eternal life until such a time as they lose it.” John 5:24, however, does add to the phrase when Jesus Himself states quite clearly, “Very truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life, AND does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.” “Passed from death to life.” Upon believing in Him, they are saved, they have passed from eternal death to eternal life, and the true believer becomes a citizen of heaven. While here on earth we are simply awaiting the promise that He will transform our body into a glorified body so we can enter heaven. We're in a waiting room, so to speak; and no, we will not leave this waiting room to return to the world. We know this because God has stated in His word that he will complete the good work that He has started in us. He will strengthen us, and maintain us, and ensure our entrance into heaven.

The fact of the matter is, that, “those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn of a large family.” (Rom.8:29). “There is, therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom.8:1), and, we can be convinced, as Paul was, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom.8:38-39).
(see also: 1 Cor.1:8; Rom.8:29; Rom.8:38-39; Phil.1:6; Phil.3:20-21; Jude 1:24; 1 Jn.5:10-13; Acts 13:38-39)

Jesus Himself states quite clearly that we cannot lose our salvation. He assures us in John 10:27-29, “27)My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28)I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29)What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.” He also tells us, “Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away” … “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” … “This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.” … “Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (Jn.6:37,39,40,47)

The Lord knows those who are His, and He will never – yes, NEVER, leave us or forsake us. (2 Tim.2:19; Heb.13:5)

One of the ways our Lord ensures our salvation is to seal us. 2 Corinthians 1:22 states, “by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” The word “seal” is translated from the Greek word sphragizō, which is defined as a seal of ownership, to prove, or attest, or confirm and authenticate beyond all doubt. In the case of the true believer, it confirms they have been saved. Ephesians 1:13-14 states this even more clearly: “13)In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14)this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.” (cf. Eph.4:30; 2 Cor.5:5)

As further assurance, Jesus not only places His seal of ownership upon us, but He continually intercedes for us with God the Father (Rom.8:34). Some may no doubt contend that Jesus may, if our actions call for it, stop interceding and thus we would lose our salvation. However, in Hebrews 7:25 we read, “Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” In this passage, the phrases “for all time” and “always” jump out at us. The phrase “for all time” is translated from the Greek phrase, eis to panteles, which means “unto the complete end” i.e., “completely and utterly.” The word “always” is translated from the Greek word, pantote, which means “at all time, always, ever.” In other words, Jesus does not simply make intercession for us with God the Father, but He does so at all times, every second of every day, from the point of our salvation until we enter the presence of the Lord; and there is absolutely nothing in this passage to indicate that He stops or gives up on us. Remember His promise from Deuteronomy 31:6, reiterated in Hebrews 13:5, when God Himself tells us that He will never leave us, nor forsake us. Ever.

This gift of salvation, that God has given us, that Jesus has sealed us for, that Jesus continually and non-stop intercedes for us is guaranteed. It is irrevocable (Rom.11:29). 1 Peter 1:4-5 tells us that once saved, we are brought into, “4)…an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5)who are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

(see also: Job 42:2; Ps.33:10-11; Is.46:9-10; Dan.4:35; Ps.34:22; 1 Jn. 5:4; 2 Tim.4:18; Col.1:13; Heb.9:15; Eph.2:19; Ecc.3:14; Gal.3:29; Gal.4:6-7; 1 Cor.1:8-9; Rom.8:30)

The most common objection to the doctrine of eternal security, or “once saved, always saved” as some call it, is their belief that this doctrine teaches that one can be saved and then engage in whatever sin they choose and still go to heaven. The truth is, however, that one cannot engage in whatever sin they choose and still go to heaven. Such an idea is known as antinomianism, and is a heresy that Paul dealt with in Romans 6.

In the first two verses of chapter 6, Paul asks, and then answers, the question of true believers sinning. He states, “1)What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2)By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?” He goes on in verses 11-16, “11)So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12)Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13)No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14)For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15)What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16)Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”

Two things are evident in Chapter 6. The first is that true believers can and will sin, and second, not only should Christians not sin, but there is no reason for them to sin. Paul states in Chapter 6, verses 3-4, “3)Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4)Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” As we can see, being baptized into Christ, into His death, also breaks the bond we have with our sin nature. We are no longer slaves to it because we have been raised (symbolically through our baptism) to “walk in newness of life.” 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us that when we are raised with Christ through baptism, we are a new creation, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” Therefore, there is no reason to engage in any sin at any time.

Additionally, although a true believer may from time to time fall into sin, these periods are short lived, and not a pattern of life; plus they will create within the true believer, an emotional pain, a loathing for the sin they have fallen into. This is the conviction of sin which is brought upon the true believer to drive him/her away from sin and into repentance. As mentioned, the common objection raised against the doctrine of eternal security is that it teaches a Christian can engage in whatever sin they choose, for as long as they choose, because they are going to heaven no matter what. As shown, however, not only does the Lord keep those who have come to Him until they enter heaven, but He also prevents them from engaging in a life patterned by sin. This is clearly stated in 1 John 3:1-10. As a new creation in Christ (2 Cor.5:17), the true believer not only cannot engage in a life patterned by sin, but is actually incapable of living such a life. Specifically, verses 6-9, lay this out very clearly.

The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament presents these verses in both the Greek, and an exact translation of the Greek, thus,

Clearly then, Scripture teaches that a person is saved and justified by the grace of God alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and not by any works that we can do – Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria; and once a person is truly saved, they will, as a result of and evidence of their salvation, engage in those good works that were prepared for them to do by God from before the creation of the world, and they will do so solely for the glory of God.

Scripture also clearly teaches that once a person is truly saved, their salvation is ensured and guaranteed – they cannot lose their salvation, and they cannot walk away from their salvation (1 Jn.2:19). They will remain secure in the Lord until that moment when they enter the presence of the Lord.

Additionally, Scripture also clearly teaches that once a person is saved they will not and cannot live a life patterned by sin. Only those who belong to the devil – the unsaved – are capable of living a life patterned by sin. (see also: Heb.10:26-29; 1 Jn.2:19; Lk.8:4-8,13)

Of the two views, the synergistic view of salvation (held by the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, liberal or “progressive” Protestants, and some who hold to an Arminian view of salvation), and the monergistic view of salvation (held by conservative Protestants, Reformed Protestants, some Presbyterians, some Baptists, and some Lutherans), it is the monergistic view of salvation that is based on Scripture, and not the synergistic view. The monergistic view accepts and depends upon the total and complete sufficiency of God and of Christ's atonement; while recognizing that man is completely unable to come to the Lord of his own accord (Rom.3:9-20). The synergistic view, on the other hand, denies the sufficiency of God and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, by teaching that man must perform works in order to attain salvation, and must perform works to ensure that God is able to hold him secure in his salvation.

Of these two views of salvation and justification, the Biblical monergistic view and the unscriptural synergistic view; the words of the Apostle Paul seem clearly apropos:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” –– Galatians 1:6-9


Sources:
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter 3, Article 2, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm (accessed 28 April 2017)

2. Eternal Word Television Network Website, Article: Bible Says Faith and Works Needed For Salvation by Sal Ciresi, https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.htm (accessed 28 April 2017)

3. Eternal Word Television Network Website, Article: Justification: “By Faith Alone? By James Akin, http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/solafide.htm (accessed 28 April 2017)
4. Catholic Answers Website, Article: Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation? By Tim Staples, April 30, 2015, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-good-works-necessary-for-salvation (accessed 28 April 2017)

All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Catholic Edition (NRSVCE), copyright © 1989, 1993 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Mounce and William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

“Reverse-Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.