As mentioned previously contemporary Evangelicals and Confessional Protestants are quick to adopt the canons and concepts of Higher Criticism when it comes to these books and lump them in with the many (and often dubious) Second Temple narratives of the academy implying these works are pseudepigrapha and syncretistic.
And yet the arguments they use are the same which the academy also uses when dealing with questions of date, authorship, and even content regarding books such as Daniel, Job and the like. These arguments and indeed this entire school of thought and its methods need to be categorically rejected – not employed when merely convenient. I do not accept that Tobit and Judith were counterfeit productions of Second Temple Judaism any more than I do the works of Daniel or the Book of Job. They are what they purport to be. There are still difficulties to be sure but they are minor and no different than what we encounter in many other Old Testament Scriptures.
The other Apocryphal books are either sections of already
extant Old Testament works or do in fact date (without controversy) from what
is commonly referred to as the intertestamental period – such as Maccabees or
Sirach. The only one that remains a somewhat open question to me is Wisdom –
nowhere is Solomon specifically named and so it may or may not be older – or a
production of the Alexandrian (and hence 'intertestamental') context. But likewise
there are questions and difficulties with regard to the Proverbs and even
Ecclesiastes. And some even believe Ecclesiasticus/Sirach is also of older and
perhaps Solomonic origin.
What of the argument that Christ and the apostles did not use
these books and therefore did not recognize them? This argument used to carry a
lot of weight for me but once I dove a bit deeper I was surprised to discover
two things.
First, they didn't quote from or utilize many Old Testament
books and so therefore that doesn't necessarily mean anything – and again parts
of the Apocrypha are reckoned to belong to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah. You
could just as easily argue that when Daniel and Jeremiah are referenced it
would de facto include the longer LXX texts with the 'apocryphal' portions. The
Early Church would have thought so. Many of the Fathers quote from these
sections without missing a beat.
I am of course familiar with the categorical references such
as the Law, Wisdom books, and the Prophets but to argue they therefore exclude
the so-called apocrypha begs the question. Most of the Apocrypha is either
within the Wisdom category or among the historical works.
And second, I (and others) believe the New Testament is actually
referencing these books and writings in many places. It's simply that our
translators and notation systems don't recognize this. In many places there are
references made by concept, as well as various turns of phrase, truncated
quotes, and so forth. Quite a bit of work has been done on this. As expected
not every suggested reference is convincing but some are indisputable. And so I
don't accept the argument. This doesn't mean these books are automatically
canonical as we know that other pagan books, as well as works like 1 Enoch and
the Assumption of Moses are quoted and referenced by the New Testament and yet
are not (broadly speaking) claimed as Scripture by anyone.
And yet the Early Church used the Old Testament 'apocryphal'
books and writings without qualification. The Early Church fathers are of
course far from infallible and yet it's startling to think that even in the
first and early second century, Church leaders (some who had direct contact
with the apostles) had already radically departed from their teaching and embraced a new Old Testament canon?
This is highly unlikely to say the least.
Further, when Marcion came along in the second century and
did try to manipulate the canon – what happened? He was condemned across the
board and we have a great deal of evidence to support this. So if the
introduction of the Apocrypha was something novel or late – where's the
evidence of a protest? Again, as Bercot
has pointed out, Julius Africanus raised the issue with Origen in the third
century, suggesting that the LXX was dubious (which would include by
implication the Apocrypha). Origen completely rejects this line of reasoning
and reckons the premise of such an argument a virtual impossibility. After
granting that there are sometimes small issues and discrepancies within the
various texts, he nevertheless defends the questioned (apocryphal) portions of
Daniel by appealing to Providential Preservation and quoting Deuteronomy – You shall not remove the ancient landmarks
which your fathers have set. It's a mindset quite foreign to today's
post-Princetonian autograph-inerrancy approaches to the text of Scripture.
Origen all but rebukes Julius for 'scoffing' at the Scriptures, for daring to
question its validity by the criticisms he employs. For all of the problems
associated with Origen, this passage was refreshing to say the least and
completely applicable to today's context.
It really isn't until the fourth century and the time of
Jerome that one starts to find a few more voices questioning the LXX and effectively
embracing the Jewish argument and position which resulted in and was used to
justify what became the Masoretic Text.
At this point someone will ask - does this reality, this
appeal to the Early Church Fathers mean we must also accept what they taught in
terms of polity and the like? There's a difference between these questions. We
can trace these things (some of them errors) developing throughout the course
of their writings – the rise of diocesan bishops and early forms of apostolic
succession and so forth. We can also (perhaps) understand on a pragmatic level why
these developments occurred and laid an unfortunate groundwork for the flood of
compromise and innovation that would arrive post-Constantine.
This is not the case with the Ante-Nicene Father's use of the
Apocrypha. From Clement at the end of the first century and onward these
writings are used and referred to without hesitation and without any
distinction from the rest of the Old Testament. In some cases they are put into
medley form along with other Old and New Testament texts.
It is in the fourth century with Jerome (dwelling in
Bethlehem sitting (as it were) at the feet of the Jews) that these writings are
given the designation 'Apocrypha' – what was a contemporary Jewish usage. The
Jews at that point had rejected these books for a few centuries. And yet
Jerome's approach to the Old Testament broke sharply with the LXX tradition
that had dominated up to that time. He went the Hebrew-Jewish route and adopted
the arguments that would be associated with what became known as the Masoretic
Text – and was heavily criticised for it at the time. Consequently he left the
LXX additions in – the so-called extra books and with them the extra portions
of Jeremiah, Esther, and Daniel that subsequently and yet erroneously were
treated as additional or separate books in later translations. But for the LXX
and thus to the Early Church, these portions or writings (again, the additional
material connected to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel) were simply part of those
books and incorporated within their larger texts.
Jerome cast these writings into doubt by way of his prologues
in the Vulgate. Criticised at the time and largely ignored, the newly
designated Apocrypha was still considered
part of the Old Testament canon. There are some exceptions of course (like
Melito's canonical list) but even these contrary evidences are not always clear
either, as they omit some books Protestants would like to see, and possibly
include others they would not. It is admittedly somewhat complicated but the
open-and-shut case presented by Protestant polemicists is misleading to say the
least. Once again, the argument is often more in terms of Scholastic-style
philosophical-theology and made on the basis of theological coherence – neat
and tidy to be sure but dishonest and therefore to be rejected.
And even Jerome's record regarding these books is less than
consistent as he sometimes referred to (at least some of) these books as
Scripture. In fact the Vulgate itself is a somewhat muddled production in that
Jerome utilised the LXX when it came to popular verses and the Psalms. One
could say that he anticipated today's Biblical scholars in advocating for a
kind of eclectic text. But I think it's also safe to say what Origen and other
early Christians would have thought of him and his Vulgate.
There are always outliers and exceptions, but largely the Old
Testament canon used in the Early Church included these writings. This is
further affirmed by the Synods of Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397,
and Carthage again in 419. I do not view these councils as authoritative but the
discussion had clearly been generated and was in the air (in part thanks to
Jerome). They merely affirm what was already understood on these points. Additionally
they belie Magisterial Protestant claims regarding the Old Testament canon and
the bogus argument that Rome or Roman Catholicism did not formally acknowledge
these books as canonical until the Council of Trent in 1563. Recognition of the
Apocrypha was not a Counter-Reformation measure or innovation, but rather a
re-affirmation of their status in light of the fact that without historical precedent apart from Jerome, the Magisterial
Reformers came along and suddenly decided to modify in absolute terms the Old Testament canon (and the LXX tradition)
that had been in use since the times of the Early Church and the New Testament.
Even Jerome had not been quite so bold.
It also testifies to the fact that Jerome's view was novel
and it also explains the context for why it was subsequently ignored. And let's
just say there are many examples of Jerome's thinking that demand some
scrutiny. Boniface VIII may have reckoned him a Doctor of the Church, but no
Protestant would. His commentaries are dubious and his theology even more so.
The Vigilantius episode alone demonstrates something of his character and the
muddled nature of his reasoning and theology. Long before I ventured down this
path, I had already determined that Jerome was not someone whose judgment
should be reckoned worthy of esteem.