There is a good site that gives some brief explanations about the Apocrypha and why it is not inspired by God at The Lazy Boy's Rest Stop.
William Whittacker in his classic, Disputations On Holy Scripture, made one argument that struck me the most and has stuck with me is that the Apocrypha claims that it is not inspired. Could you imagine a writer of the New Testament saying something to the effect of, "Well, what I am writing to you may or may not be from God."? Of course not, but this is exactly what we have in one of the books of the Apocrypha.
Here is what one website says:
Finally, it must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God. Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying.” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states:
“Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases” (The Apocrypha, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1894).
"Seemed to fail" pretty much says it for me. I don't want a God that is not sure of Himself. I don't want a God that I have to correct. I need correction, and that is what the God-Breathed Scriptures do for me.
Are you willing to listen to the God-Breathed Scriptures too?
7 comments:
Not to get too picky, but your assessment of the apocrypha is painted a little too broadly, methinks. First of all, the prologue to ecclesiasticus is merely a statement of the difficulty of translating from Hebrew to Greek. The New Testament is preserved in Greek, but the words of Jesus were almost certainly spoken in Aramaic, so be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Hebrew version was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and was in substantial agreement with the Greek. Also, in Jude 14 & 15 a non-canonical book is quoted as Scripture. He is given a rather impressive resume - patriarch and prophet, whose prophecies presumably spoke of the men then infiltrating the Church, and their ultimate destruction has not yet come about, so the prophecy is still awaiting its ultimate fulfillment. A prophecy that was made from Antediluvian times, and which is yet to pass is rather clear proof of the respect with which these books were treated.
The trouble is that the Clergy are all trained to mindlessly spew forth whatever the party line tells them to. Someone chooses to be Catholic, or Mormon, or Protestant or whatever first. Then, depending upon the parameters set forth by whatever "truth" they have already concluded beforehand is correct, they proceed to justify one position or the other, which is patently absurd, which is also why the Church is such a colossal joke to the rest of the world. You have long since departed from the command given you to let God be true and every man a liar, in effect setting yourselves up as God himself; defining by fleshly criteria that which was meant to be defined by the Spirit. This is carnal, devilish, and certainly not from God, unless you consider that this eternal impasse is your punishment for the arrogance of the Christ murderers, the Judases who betrayed the Word of God with their feigned affection. As you endlessly squabble amongst yourselves, remember that you are sick, and yet say you need no doctor. Scholars take evidence like Jude's usage of Enoch and dismiss it out of hand. A crime against the Spirit for which all have had to suffer. Like Judas you feign affection for the Word of God, and it is by this means that you betray him who is the Logos. You know perfectly well that the Logos became flesh, so even as the Jews murdered Christ in the flesh, the Christians murdered the Logos.
Now it has become the third day, and it is time for the resurrection of the Logos. You fools! You who accuse Jude of lying. Peter backs him up. Peter saves Jude by writing around him, and letting us know why. He wants us to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets. He knew Enoch was a prophet, and the division of the Church would come about through the ensuing confusion. You have dipped your bread in and taken substance from the bread of Christ, all for a paltry reward.
Go look at Wisdom 2:12-24. That is a direct prophecy of Christ's suffering. And why did this happen? Verse 22 says, "...they did not know the hidden counsels of God..." The word 'Apocrypha' means 'hidden'. Obviously, however, you are confident in your position, but how was Solomon wrong here, or how was Jude wrong here? Do not perpetuate this lie. Judge righteously. Man is not clean in God's sight. Man is certainly not the judge of God, nor has he the strength to oppose His will.
"The New Testament is preserved in Greek, but the words of Jesus were almost certainly spoken in Aramaic, so be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
Ok, but what does this have to do with the inspiration of the Apocrypha? My argument was that the Apocrypha itself says it is not inspired, not because it was in aramaic.
"Also, in Jude 14 & 15 a non-canonical book is quoted as Scripture."
This is a common claim with no foundation There is no thus says the Lord. Simply because an author of Scripture quotes a book outside of the Canon of Scripture doesn't make that book inspired or God-breathed.
The Apostle Paul quotes some pagan philosophers. Should we make their writings God-breathed? Of course not.
The historical evidence I believe is in favor of the Palestinian canon. The internal evidence also is against the Apocrypha being God-Breathed.
"defining by fleshly criteria that which was meant to be defined by the Spirit."
I firmly believe it is the Spirit who is ABLE to bring about a knowledge of His Word to His people. He is ABLE to write and preserve Scripture for the salvation of God's people.
You however accuse me of using fleshly standards, yet are you somehow more spiritual? Actually it is the RC church, the Mormon church and ect, that go beyond the Palestinian canon that set themselves up as God.
Simply look at the authority Rome claims and why the Canon is the Canon. Protestants have never claimed to have the authority that Rome or Utah claim. For you to make that assertion is absurd.
Also, if the Book of Enoch should be in the Canon, why does Rome not put it there? Or anyone else for that matter. Kind of ironic, I think, that so many complain that the Apocryha should be in the Bible for Protestants while not including it in their own.
Okay, even though I understand you are going to trash my arguments no matter how sound they may be, and believe me, I know, because I have dealt with men of the cloth before, I will go ahead and waste my time, just on principle.
First of all, I myself believe in Sola Scriptura. I am neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor of any denomination whatsoever. But Sola Scriptura is precisely why you should believe Jude about Enoch. In fact, how is it even possible for anyone to declare that one believes in Sola Scriptura and at the same time call oneself a Methodist or Baptist or whatever. That seems not to appeal to Sola Scriptura at all, but to a blend of Scripture and doctrine. (Please prove me wrong here.) Also when Paul refers to extrabiblical sources, he clearly distinguishes them from Scripture, but Jude does not. (You certainly must know this.) There is a nearly infinite difference between calling someone a 'poet' and calling one a 'prophet'. It is by no means the same thing. Probably owing to my brash and admittedly irreverent attitude, I believe you did not consider my previous argument carefully. It is subtle, but powerful. No offense, but what you did was to spew forth an argument which you got from Seminary or somewhere else, because that rebuttal is every bit as old as the problem of Jude's quotations. Yes, I said quotations, because he is also quoting the Assumption of Moses in verse 9; which Peter himself echoes in 2 Peter 2:10&11.
You conveniently ignored the part where I said, "He is given a rather impressive resume - patriarch and prophet, whose prophecies presumably spoke of the men then infiltrating the Church, and their ultimate destruction has not yet come about, so the prophecy is still awaiting its ultimate fulfillment. A prophecy that was made from Antediluvian times, and which is yet to pass is rather clear proof of the respect with which these books were treated." The prophecy (which by definition is spoken by a prophet) MUST still be in effect, because Judgment Day has not yet passed, so either Jude is wrong here, or else the Church is wrong here.
What is the stated purpose of Jude? He says that he is writing to urge the reader to "...fight for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." Now again, maybe you know, but why would Jude utilize BOTH the Assumption of Moses AND The First Book of Enoch in his defense of the Faith if this were not the very faith we were told to fight for? (NO ONE has ever given me even a cockamamie answer for this.)
Furthermore, Jude is important. We know this because it is the ONLY New Testament epistle that is almost entirely embedded in another epistle. (Again, you know that over half of Jude is incorporated into 2 Peter.) And what does Peter say is the secret to unveiling the mystery of his epistle? In 2 Peter 1:20&21 the prophet declares, "FIRST OF ALL, you must know this, that NO prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because NO prophecy EVER came by human will, but men spoke from GOD by means of the HOLY SPIRIT."
Now if we actually follow his instructions here, we should view his entire epistle through this lens. The obvious question here is, of all letters Peter (or whoever) could have used, why would he choose Jude to write around? I have heard arguments to the effect that this is an argument AGAINST apocryphal books, because the quote from Enoch is missing. Well imagine that, he thinks enough of Jude's letter to use it, but he chooses to edit stuff out that he disagrees with. This would be hypocritical in the extreme for any so-called prophet to so grossly contradict himself within the selfsame letter, to both affirm some aspects of a writing, and to reject others, when he is the very one who says, "First of all, you must know this, that NO prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because NO prophecy EVER came by human will, but men spoke from GOD by means of the HOLY SPIRIT." If he disagreed with Jude, would he not have structured his entire letter around it.
Now both Peter and Jude speak of these evil men infiltrating the Church and corrupting it with their false doctrines. Now I ask you, did they succeed, or did they fail? If they succeeded, then folks like you are their successors. (Again, no offense, but just as a matter of fact, they would have passed their teachings down to all of us as a result, so it is not unimportant.)
Now why would Peter have to in effect defend Jude by stating, "First of all, you must know this, that NO prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because NO prophecy EVER came by human will, but men spoke from GOD by means of the HOLY SPIRIT." Isn't it precisely because people were questioning Jude's use of these books, and was not Peter then setting them straight? Is it so impossible to believe that the letters both mean precisely what they say? Is this not the very spirit of Sola Scriptura? In my view, to say Jude is lying is a crime against the Holy Spirit, which would explain why the Church remains under condemnation. God cannot lie.
I'm sure you think yourself to be honest and devoted, and you may be quite sincere, but this whole situation smacks of deception and cover-up. Why, for instance, was Jude 'buried' between 3 John and Revelation, when its rightful place ought to have been right after 2 Peter? Who, besides dishonest people, would have done such a thing.
And what about Enoch's resume? The 'seventh from Adam' and the assertion that his words were prophetic? Is that the same as saying, "...even as one of your poets has said..." You know in your heart that it is not at all the same thing. The difference between me and most other Christians I know, is that I cannot take the word of man over the word of God. God has even said, "Let God be true and EVERY man a liar." This is not so much an admonition, as it is a foundation for uncovering the greatest deception ever pulled off by mankind. These are the "...many who shall bring the way of truth into disrepute."
Peter is not 'watering down' anything. Where does it say in Genesis that Noah was a preacher per se? Where does it say in Genesis that the Sons of God were held in chains and in prison? Answer: nowhere. Does Jude mention that Michael the Archangel was in the presence of the Lord per se? It could possibly be surmised from the quote, but Peter says it emphatically. Face it, these Prophets read these books. The Book of Enoch DOES mention the preaching of Noah, and does mention the prison house for the fallen angels. Still, I suppose that neither you, nor any of your bloggers care about truths like that. That is why I come across as angry, because it has been my experience that only those who have no stake in religion ever believe that these traces were left in these writings to condemn the Church. Does not Paul say that judgment begins with the house of God? Well, he got it from Enoch! Check it out if you don't believe me. Enoch 1:7 ends like this, "And there shall be a judgment upon all (including) the righteous."
Even so, I could reveal to you mysteries beyond these. Things that would utterly confound your every attempt to justify yourself. (Call me on it if you like.) But I spare you now, for I fear you will only bring condemnation upon yourself. But I will say this: EVERYTHING you believe hinges on this. I cannot blame you for holding on to the only thing you know, but this issue WILL be resolved--and in the not-so-distant future. Mark my words, I am perfectly capable seeing my arguments through.
P.S. I don't think faith can in any way be tied to history. If the Scriptures themselves cannot reveal these things to us, then we are lost. Consider James 1:19: "...everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath." Now consider Ecclesiasticus 5:12&13: "Be consistent in your thoughts: steadfast in your speech. Be swift to hear, but slow to answer."
Now a Catholic will admit that James is quoting Ben Sira, and a Protestant, even if he concedes the quote, will simply say that a mere quote is, as you say, not the same as "Thus saith the
lord." All of this begs the Question, "Where is it written that for something to be Scriptural it has to have some clear indication to that effect." Do me a favor, find someplace with a greater affirmation of a prophet than, "And Enoch also, THE SEVENTH FROM ADAM, also PROHESIED ABOUT these men...." That's a pretty glowing testament to its inspiration in my opinion. These features obviously exist to thwart the very reasoning to which you appeal. The truth is as I stated previously: you, like ALL other 'Men of God' are merely repeating the 'Party Line'.
You are in effect praising your forebears for 'killing the prophets'. They killed Enoch by destroying the work, and you build his sepulchre by keeping his body dead, when by your honesty (and the SPirit of God) you could call him forth from the tomb. But you won't because that's how 'Men of God' are.
Howard, I just wanted to add a note, The Book of Enoch DOES exist in the canon of the Etiopic Church. That's the only reason why it exists to this day. The Book was at Qumran because fragments of it remain. The fragments there did not slough off of the original documents sometime before AD 70, but HAD TO have disappeared in or about 1947, because it was only by then that the parchments had deteriorated enough for the outside pages of it to have simply fallen off. This means that either the Jews or the Church, or some other entity still has it and wants to suppress it. (This is why they are so secretive about fragments, because just WHEN they fragmented is very telling. Also, I am not who you probably think I am, because I have only written to you two times, and I have only responded to this one blog, so apparently somebody besides me is giving you a hard time;)
I do not doubt that you have apowerful argument. If all we had was the evidence you provided in your argumentation then I would have to seriously consider it.
however, Enoch was not a part of the Jewish Canon. Therefore it was no part of Jesus' Canon. Therefore I do not accept that your evidence is the ONLY argumentation out there.
You may hate the party line. You may think you are not making assumptions, but you are as well.
Sorry you feel I am burying and killing prophets.
"In fact, how is it even possible for anyone to declare that one believes in Sola Scriptura and at the same time call oneself a Methodist or Baptist or whatever. That seems not to appeal to Sola Scriptura at all, but to a blend of Scripture and doctrine."
This goes to show you have a greater misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is than you realize. So again, sorry to disappoint you.
God Bless
Howard
"Howard, I just wanted to add a note, The Book of Enoch DOES exist in the canon of the Etiopic Church. That's the only reason why it exists to this day. The Book was at Qumran because fragments of it remain."
Gee, we must be typing at the same time.
Yes, I am well aware that the book was even considered Scripture by many church fathers as well. It is amazing to me that a book that is fully inspired by the Spirit of God was able to have been preserved for God's people for so many centuries.
Be that as it may, if God wants His people to be blessed by it, He will bring His people to recognize it.
Post a Comment