p. 1 | The Apocryphal Books of the New Testament

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 28, 1878

The Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

WHAT about the apocryphal books ? Were there not a large number of gospels and epistles claiming to have been written by the apostles, besides those which we now have ? Was it not a long time before the church decided which were genuine and which were not ? Did not King James decide this question ? or, was it not first done by Constantine ? And were not some of the books now in the Bible almost rejected, and only voted in by one or two majority ?

It makes one indignant to hear infidels promulgating such falsehoods as these, when every scholar of any reading knows better.

King James of England, about two hundred and fifty years ago, selected fifty-four learned Christian men to translate the Holy Scriptures out of the original Hebrew and Greek into English, though translations had been made by others several times, and many years before. These translators had nothing to do in voting on what books should be received as the genuine books of the Bible, or what should not. No such question came before them. They simply translated the books of the Bible just as they found them in the original, and as they had always stood, and been received since the days of the apostles. Neither did Constantine, his council, nor any other council, vote on the books of the Bible, receiving this book, rejecting that book, and disputing over another. Unscrupulous infidels have started these theories and kept them going. But they are utterly false. The facts in the case are simply these :

1. "Besides our gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Christian history claiming to be written by an apostle or apostolical man is quoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant or known ; or if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and rejection." Paley's Evidences, p. 124.

"The four gospels which we have, and these only, have always been acknowledged and quoted by Christians and heretics, Jews and pagans, as authoritative books of the Christian church. . . . It has never been pretended that the Christian church has acknowledged any other gospels as canonical." Stowe's Hist. of the Books of the Bible.

2. There is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal books whatever existed in the first century of the Christian era, in which century all our historical books are proved to have been extant. There are no quotations from any such books by the apostolical fathers for the first one hundred years.

3. In after generations, when these apocryphal books began to appear, they were never read in the Christian churches, as the books of the New Testament were always read.

4. They were never admitted into the volume with those which we now have.

5. They never appear in the catalogues given by early writers, with the books of the true Scriptures. Indeed, when the catalogues of the true books are given, these spurious ones are frequently mentioned as existing, but as being spurious. Thus Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, written A. D. 315, after giving the genuine books, says : "Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul and that called Pastor and the Revelation of Peter, besides those books called the Epistle of Barnabas." Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., chap. XXV., p. 110, etc. This is only a sample of how carefully the distinction was always made.

"This species of evidence comes later than the rest, as it was not natural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be put forth, until Christian writings became numerous, or until some writings showed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to them, and thereby rendering it necessary to separate books of authority from others. But when it does appear, it is extremely satisfactory; the catalogues, though numerous, and made in countries at a wide distance from one another, differing very little, differing in nothing which is material, and all containing the four gospels. To this last article there is no exception.

"I. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts preserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there are enumerations of the books of Scripture, in which the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honorably specified, and in which no books appear besides what are now received. The reader, by this time, will easily recollect that the date of Origen's work is A. D. 230.

"II. Athanasius, about a century afterward, delivered a catalogue of the books of the New Testament in form, containing our Scriptures and no others; of which he says, 'In these alone the doctrine of religion is taught; let no man add to them, or take anything from them.'

"III. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, set forth a catalogue of the books of Scripture publicly read at that time.

"IV. And, fifteen years after Cyril, the Council of Laodicea delivered an authoritative catalogue of canonical Scripture, like Cyril's.

"V. Catalogues now become frequent. Within thirty years from the last date, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourth century, we have catalogues by Epiphanius, by Gregory Nazianzen, by Philaster, bishop of Brescia in Italy, by Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, all, as they are sometimes called, clean catalogues (that is, they admit no books into the number besides what we now receive), and all, for every purpose of historic evidence, the same as ours.

"VI. Within the same period, Jerome, the most learned Christian writer of his age, delivered a catalogue of the books of the New Testament, recognizing every book now received, with the intimation of a doubt concerning the epistle to the Hebrews alone, and taking not the least notice of any book which is not now received.

"VII. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was St. Augustine in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, without joining to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any other ecclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we at this day acknowledge.

"VIII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, Rusin, a presbyter of Aquileia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect and unmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words: 'These are the volumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and out of which they would have us prove the doctrine of our faith.'" Paley's Evidences, pp. 123, 124.

As the book of Revelation has been particularly assailed, we deem it proper to say a few words about it. We often hear it asserted that it was never known till long after the time of the apostles, and that it was finally admitted into the Bible, after a great struggle, by a vote of one majority. This story has been repeated so confidently that uninformed persons have really come to believe it; but it is all a wicked falsehood.

On this subject a learned writer truthfully remarks: "The testimony of the early and contemporary witnesses is unanimous and uncontradicted in favor of the book. Though well known and extensively used in the churches, not a breath of suspicion was ever blown upon its reputation, until nearly one hundred and fifty years after the death of the apostle to whom it is ascribed; and then not confidently, but doubtingly; not on any critical grounds alleged or pretended, but solely on account of the supposed difficulty of its interpretation, the bad use which has been made of it, and a dislike to the doctrines which it was imagined to contain." Stowe's Hist. of the Books of the Bible, p. 470.

The occasion on which the genuineness of this book was first questioned was the following: About A. D. 230, Nepos, a certain bishop from Egypt, began to advocate the notion of a thousand years' personal reign of Christ upon the earth. He was very zealous in propagating this false theory. He drew his argument principally from the book of Revelation. At first, a large number in Africa fell into the heresy. But a few years afterward, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, so thoroughly refuted this theory that it was quite generally abandoned. This occurred A. D. 255. As the Apocalypse was the source from which the heretics had drawn their false doctrine, the bishop began to question that book itself, though he could bring nothing against it. He acknowledged that he could not understand the book, yet would not on that account reject it. He allowed that it was written by a man named John, who was a holy and inspired man. He did not attempt to bring any evidence against the genuineness or authenticity of the book itself.

This was the first open attack ever made on the genuineness of the Apocalypse, and it is plain, from the bishop's own evidence, that he could bring no respectable authority against it. It is also plain that he had no historical ground for his conjectures; but that the testimony of history was all against him; that he himself was not at all confident about the doubtfulness of the book; and that his wish to get rid of its authority arose entirely from his apprehension of its obscurity, and its influence on the millennial controversy. This controversy continued to prevail through several centuries; and during that time its opposers felt an anxiety to rid themselves of the authority of the Apocalypse, and their efforts in this direction only served to keep up the dispute. All who were induced to reject the book, did so, not on historical ground against it, not for want of such testimony in its favor, but simply on doctrinal grounds. But the absurdity and false doctrines ascribed to this book belong to the interpreters, and not to the book itself.

That this book was unanimously received by the entire Christian church, immediately after the death of St. John, is abundantly shown by Dr. Stowe in his able work, History of the Books of the Bible, chapter twelve. Here the reader will find a list of more than a score of the most noted Christian writers of the first three centuries, beginning with the immediate successors of St. John, —persons who were personally acquainted with him,—and extending down through a period of over two hundred years, all indorsing the book of Revelation as holy Scripture, written by St. John. Who could ask better testimony than this? It was included in the catalogues of the New Testament books composed at that time by different fathers. No book of the New Testament stands better authenticated than this book.

6. The apocryphal writings were never noticed by the adversaries of the Christians, were never quoted or referred to by them, while they frequently quoted books of the New Testament.

7. They were never alleged by the different parties in theological controversies. This shows that they were considered of no authority. But every book of the New Testament was frequently thus quoted.

8. No commentaries were ever written on these apocryphal books. They were never translated into other languages. In short, little or no notice is taken of them in any age, at least until we come down into the Dark Ages, after the canon of the New Testament Scriptures had been fairly and unanimously settled. Finally, besides the silence of two centuries, they were with one consent universally repudiated by Christian writers of succeeding ages.

One thing is noticeable in all these apocryphal writings, viz., that they proceed upon the same fundamental history of Christ and his apostles as that which is set forth in the New Testament. The bare events and relations of the gospels are confirmed in these writings. They neither deny nor contradict any of them. They simply claim to give additional facts. But these writings are of no authority, and were never received as Scripture by the church in any age.

The difference between a genuine and a spurious book is easily proved. A book may be regarded as presumably spurious, 1. When doubts have been entertained from the first that it was the work of the reputed author; 2. When its intimate friends have denied that it was his work; 3. When a great number of years has elapsed since the death of the reputed author, during which time the book was entirely unknown or unheard of; 4. When the style is very different from that of the author whom it claims; 5. When events are recorded in it which are known to have occurred since the death of the pretended author; 6. When doctrines are taught which are contrary to 'the teachings of the pretended author.

Now every one of these evidences of the spuriousness of a work is true of these apocryphal books, while they are not true in a single case with regard to any other books of the New Testament. Whoever will take the trouble to read the apocryphal books, and to compare them with the New Testament, will have his mind set at rest immediately. The last observation shows them to be entirely dissimilar. They are in every way inferior, gross, low, and silly. A late critical author truly says of them :—

"The impugners of the New-Testament gospels appeal to the fact, that there are gospels acknowledged to be apocryphal, as proof of their theory that our recognized gospels are also myths or forgeries. Any one who candidly examines these spurious gospels, and compares them with the New Testament, will find in them, not a refutation of our sacred writers, but a most convincing testimony to their intelligence, honesty, and supernatural inspiration. So totally diverse are they from the genuine gospels, in conception, in spirit, in execution, in their whole impression, in all respects so entirely unlike, so immeasurably inferior, that the New Testament only shines the brighter by the contrast. They have scarcely so much resemblance to the genuine gospels as the monkey has to a man." Stowe's Hist. of the Books of the Bible, p. 203.

Here, then, we stand with the blessed New Testament in our hands, feeling perfectly certain that it is the genuine uncorrupted writings of the apostles and their companions. Thank God that the evidence is so clear and so abundant!

D. M. CANRIGHT.

November 8, 1878.