The Apocrypha

"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131)

The Apocrypha Exposed The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." The Apocrypha is a group of literature are blatantly unbiblical and still the Roman Catholic Church supports it. One reason that they do support it is because the Apocrypha advances some of the dogma of Romanism. The Council of Trent in April 8, 1546 of the 4th Session calls us anathema (or damned to Hell) for rejecting the Apocrypha books. The Council of Trent haven’t been rejected by the Papacy at all. Now in 2009, the books of the Apocrypha are going to be exposed by me like many others have done in times past. The Aporcypha include just spurious and uninspired books. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Eccelesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Macabees, Sussana, and Additions to Esther plus Daniel. Even the Vatican rejects the First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The Apocrypha is found in the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and other pro-Roman Catholic scripts. Here’s some information about the Apocrypha:

-Neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370 references to the OT in the NT and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to Scriptures in the OT in Luke 24:44 as : "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." The RCC herself acknowledges that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, for it was not a part of the Hebrew canon. The Roman army destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. This was a fullfillment of prophecy from Jesus Christ that the Temple would be gone. The system of sacrificial rituals ended. So, in 90 A.D. The Council of Jamnia never including a book from the Apocrypha at all. Jewish leaders met in Jamnia in order to identify and fix up the Jewish canon. A respected Catholic source informs: "For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible." ("New Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. II, 'Canon, Biblical' (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 29) Another source confirms this reality: "Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which are in Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic, the apocryphal productions are in Greek ... The Jewish Church considered them uninspired, and some of their writers disclaim inspiration, (prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 11 Macc.2:23; 15:38). The Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha were produced between about 250 B.C. and somewhere in the early Christian centuries. They are not found in the Hebrew canon: they are never quoted by Jesus; and it cannot with certainty be affirmed that the apostles ever directly allude to them ..." (Davis, John D. and Henry Snyder Gehman: The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster Press (1944), p. 33)

-Josephus in the 1st Century A.D., was a Jewish historian. He was so often cited by Roman apologists and was quite explicit that the Hebrew canon included 22 books, none of which were apocryphal (This is from the source of Wm. Whistom, Trans, “Josephus,” Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1960, Against Apion, 1.8, pg. 609). -Cyril of Jerusalem (who was born in ca. 315 A.D.) catalogued the canonical OT books. His lists don’t list the Apocrypha in his catechumens lectures. -The earliest list of the OT by a patriarch was by Melito of Sardis (in died in ca. 180 A.D.). His list of 22 OT book concurs with Josephus. Origen also list 22 OT books, which are not apocryphal, but are apart of the Hebrew canon. Others of the early church patriarchs who agreed with Josephus to the composition of the 22 book Hebrew canon (omitting the Apocrypha) were Epiphanus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Hillary of Poitiers.

-Athanasius didn’t include the Apocrypha as apart of the OT canon. In a letter, Athanasius listed the 22 OT books and the 27 canonical books of the NT. Athanasius clearly declared that the canonical Scriptures alone were to be used for determining doctrine, while the Apocrypha were sanctioned for reading only, but were not considered part of the canon (The source proving this is Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace’s “Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, vol. IV, St .Athanasius, Letter 39:7, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pg. 552).

-Jerome didn’t include the Apocrypha in his Latin translations of the OT, because he said that they weren’t apart of the Hebrew canon. He admitted the Apocrypha were useful, but not authoritative for declaring or confirming doctrine. In a commentary on two apocryphal books, The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome admits to thisin his own words: "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church…I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in the Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon…" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Second Series, vol. VI, St. Jerome, "Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 492-93) -Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition) states: “…In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche…”

-In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha: "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..." King James Charles Stewart Basilicon Doron, page 13 -The 6th article of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (from the 1571 edition) states that: “…Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to

salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church…And the other Books (as Hierome saith) [This refers to the Apocrypha books] the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following…” -The Westminster Confession says that: “…The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings…”

*The Apocrypha also promotes magic in a possible way. Tobit 6:5-8 mentions that: "If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore." (Tobit 6:5-8. Ronald Knox translation). The Bible calls us to reject any form of magic, because magic is the deceptive manipulation of reality (via illusions, occultism, etc.) or Nature for a specific result. God doesn’t want us to use deception in any format at all. Of course the Apocrypha teaches that works are needed for salvation: “…Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin….” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30). The Bible is clear that God saves man alone by faith though faith. It isn’t by works lest any man boast.

Heresies Promoted in the Apocrypha The Apocrypha promotes the semi-Pelagian doctrine of salvation of works: "Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin." (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Ronald Knox translation) "It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin." Tobit 12:8-9, 17, Ronald Knox translation)

The heresy of Purgatory is promoted in the Apocrypha: "So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place. And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats o the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews: 90 that all plainly saw, for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 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. And making a gathering, he 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, (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that the who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. IT IS THEREFORE A HOLY AND WHOLESOME THOUGHT TO PRAY FOR THE DEAD, THAT THEY MAY BE LOOSED FROM SIN…” (2 Maccabees 12:38-46, Douay-Rheims Bible, emphasis not in original) The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements: "...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

Other Inaccuracies: -Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians, whereas he ruled Babylon instead. -Tobit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the Northern and Southern kingdoms in 931 BC (Tobit 1:4), and have been deported 200 years later in 734 BC (Tobit 1:10).

-Ecclesiasticus 3:3 states that honoring your father forgives sins (as found in the quote of “…Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins: ..”), which contradicts the work of Christ on the cross. -Tobit 1:15 says that Sennecherib was the son of Shalmaneser, but he was the son of Sargon the Usuper or Sargon II.

By Timothy