Why We Reject the Apocrypha by Dudley Marvin Canright

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 21, 1878

Why We Reject the Apocrypha.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THE question is frequently asked why the books of the apocrypha are not accepted as a part of the sacred Scriptures. There are many and good reasons why they are rejected.

1. These books were never sanctioned by Christ and his apostles, nor by any of the other writers of the New Testament. Both Jesus and his apostles, in all their speaking and writing, were constantly making, not only frequent references to the books of the Old Testament, but numerous quotations from them. They seemed to be ever in their minds. Everything they said or did was with reference to the teachings of that book, the law and the prophets, the Psalms, etc. They often mention them by name. In the small volume of the New Testament there are nearly nine hundred quotations from the Old Testament; but not a single quotation from, nor even an allusion to, any of the books of the apocrypha, though there are many places where instances in the apocryphal writings would be directly in point, and although it is quite probable that the writers of the New Testament were acquainted with the books of the apocrypha. Hence they must have designedly abstained from alluding to them in their writings, from the fact that they considered them of no authority. This alone is sufficient evidence on which to reject them.

2. They formed no part of the original Hebrew books contained in the Hebrew canon, and were not written till after the catalogue of the inspired books had been made up. Not one of the books of the apocrypha was ever written in Hebrew or Chaldee, as were the books of the Old Testament. They were never received by the Jews as sacred books. On this point we have the direct testimony of Josephus, in his work against Apion, Book I. sect. 8. He there gives an account of all the books held sacred by the Hebrews. This testimony is copied and indorsed by Eusebius, the celebrated Christian historian. "In the first of these works he gives the number of the canonical books of the Scriptures called the Old Testament, such as are of undoubted authority among the Hebrews, setting them forth, as handed down by ancient tradition, in the following words:—

"‘We have not, therefore, among us innummerable books that disagree and contradict one another, but only two and twenty, embracing the record of all history, and which are justly considered divine compositions. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprehending both the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, down to his own death. This time comprehends a space of nearly three thousand years. But from Moses until the death of Artaxerxes, who reigned after Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets after Moses wrote the events of their day in thirteen books. The remaining four comprehend hymns to the praise of God, and precepts for the regulation of human life. From Artaxerxes until our own times, the events are all recorded, but they are not deemed of authority equal with those before them, because that there was not an exact succession of the prophets.’” Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. book 3, chap. 10, p. 97.

Comparing these statements of Josephus with his numerous quotations from the Old Testament in his historical writings, we clearly see that he recognized just the same number of books that we have, and no others. The Jews reckon these books thus:

THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES.

Genesis. 3. Leviticus.
Exodus. 4. Numbers.
Deuteronomy.

THE THIRTEEN PROPHETIC BOOKS.

Joshua. 7. Esther.
Judges and Ruth (one). 8. Isaiah.
Two books of Samuel. 9. Jeremiah.
Two books of Kings. 10. Ezekiel.
Two books of Chron. 11. Daniel.
Ezra and Nehemiah (one). 12. Twelve minor prophets.
Job.

THE FOUR BOOKS OF HYMNS AND PRECEPTS.

Psalms. 3. Ecclesiastes.
Proverbs. 4. Canticles.

This is according to the Jewish arrangement. Stowe's History of the books of the Bible, pp. 566, 567. This makes just twenty-two books, one for each letter of their alphabet. It will be noticed that Josephus plainly recognized the existence of the apocryphal books, and expressly excluded them from the inspired writings. This again is sufficient evidence upon which to reject them.

3. They were unanimously rejected for several centuries by the early Christian churches, and by the most learned scholars of the Christian fathers. Of this fact there is the most abundant proof. The evidence is so great that in our limited space we can scarcely more than refer to it. Take a few examples: Melito, after the apostles, was a distinguished bishop of Sardis, an able writer, and a man of great influence among the early Christians. He traveled into Palestine for the express purpose of ascertaining exactly the canon of the Old Testament, and gave the result of his researches in the following letter, which we find in Eusebius: Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. book 4, chap. 26.

“‘I accordingly went to the East, and, coming to the very place where these things were preached and transacted, I have accurately learned the books of the Old Testament. Their names are as follows: Five books of Moses; to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave [of Nun], Judges, Ruth. Four books of Kings, [two of Samuel and two of Kings]. Two of Paralipomena (Chronicles), the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon (which is also Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job. Jeremiah. Of the twelve prophets, one book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [Ezra, including also Nehemiah, and perhaps Esther].’” Stowe's Hist. of the Books of the Bible, p. 568.

Where are the books of the apocrypha? Not one of them is referred to. The book of Ezra, which he does not mention, was frequently included under the name of Esdras, as it was generally supposed that book was written by Ezra.

Next we have the testimony of Origen, the great Biblical scholar of the Eastern Church, A. D. 200, who rejects all of the apocryphal books. His testimony is found in Eusebius, Book 6, chapter 25.

The great Athanasius, the renowned champion of the doctrine of the trinity, A. D. 330, rejects all of them, except the book of Baruch.

Hilary, the celebrated bishop of Poitiers, A. D. 350, rejects them all. And so we might mention the names of the best Christian scholars of antiquity, all of whom reject them.

From the preceding exhibition it is as plain as daylight can make anything plain, that the Romish Church, in receiving the apocryphal books as a part of Scripture, has not only set at naught all historical truth, but acted in direct violation of its own fundamental principle. “The unanimous consent of the Fathers is what she requires for the establishment of a doctrine; but on this subject, instead of a unanimous consent, for the first four centuries she is met with an all but unanimous dissent.” Stowe's Hist. of the Bible, p. 582.

4. The books of the apocrypha were first declared canonical by the Roman Catholic Council at Trent, A. D. 1546, only a little over three hundred years ago. This, will be noticed, was after the rise of Luther. They did this to condemn him, because, like a sensible man, he rejected these books, as all scholars before him had done. But many of the ablest Roman Catholics were bitterly opposed to receiving these books; and it was only after a fierce struggle, and through the overwhelming majority of ignorant priests, who composed the council, that their acceptance was carried. But being once made, as Rome never errs, the decision had to stand. Hence these books were incorporated into the Catholic Bible from that day forward, but not into our Bible.

5. These books are to be received simply as historical works. They are valuable in that respect, but in no other.

November 7, 1878. D. M. Canright.