By Paul Swonger (Initially written between December 12-13, 2010).

Introduction

This document contains a point by point refutation of Carm's page entitled "Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible". Carm, a Calvinist Apologetics website, claims more than a million visitors to it's website each month. With that amount of traffic, I consider it a priority to answer the reasoning Carm sets forth for it's rejection of the "Apocrypha"--more properly termed and referred to hereafter, as the Deuterocanon. As this document will demonstrate, Carm is doing a great disservice to their readers by putting forward demonstrably flawed argumentation, glaringly specious history, and quite simply, an agenda based attack on God's Word. At the bottom of this document you can download a PDF copy of the document I will be discussing here, retrieved on December 11, 2010. If significant changes to Carms's document are made in the future, I may update this page. Ryan Turner is the actual author of Carm's document.

The Importance of this Examination

This examination of Carm's "ministry" is important because the deuterocanon is part of God's Word, and does indeed belong in the Bible. As St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ". That's the core theme at the heart of this examination.

This examination is also important because Carm is a "Christian Ministry" that reaches a multitude of people. If it can be demonstrated that Carm's arguments (which are quite lengthy, and thought out) are false, then it raises questions about the ultimate credibility of Carm as a whole. This issue should be important to Catholics and non Catholics alike. Catholics, because Carm does a great deal of general misrepresentation of Catholicism, in an effort to give weight to it's own theology, but Catholicism isn't their only target. In general, if you're not in theological agreement with them (a Calvinist) you're a target. If you are a Calvinist, you're also a target because they intend to shape your knowledge of the issues they discuss according to their custom mold. With that said, let's proceed with a careful examination of what Carm says about the "Apocrypha" (deuterocanon).

Point By Point Examination

The following is a point by point examination of the claims Ryan Turner of Carm makes in his document.

An alleged Catholic versus Protestant issue

Carm's Claim "Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures.  The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1  However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture."

Apostolic Apologetics Responds The first problem here is that the issue of the deuterocanon is not merely a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. It is however, often a priority of those who attack the deuterocanon to present the argument as such, as has been done frequently. The attempt to represent this issue as a Catholic versus Protestant one attempts to play on pre-existing notions regarding the Catholic Church known to exist, in an effort to give a false sense of weight to the arguments. That aside, various Orthodox Churches (Eastern, Russian, Greek, Armenian etc) also consider the deuterocanon to be Sacred Scripture, and have always done so. This of course begs the question for those protestants who assert that Catholics added the books at the Council of Trent, as the Orthodox do not accept that council, and clearly used the books in question for centuries prior to it taking place. The closing remark of this portion of the website, that suggests the "Apocrypha" should not be part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture is ultimately false, though I will address the supposed reasoning behind Carm's claim as they attempt to argue in support of it.

Alleged Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

Carm's Claim "1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God."

Apostolic Apologetics Responds This is really the first attempt to set what are without question, arbitrary (and false) criteria for Canonicity. Carm seems to insinuate that only a direct quote from Jesus or the Apostles, or a reference that includes the arbitrary formulas given (e.g. "thus says the Lord", "as it is written" etc) can establish the Canonicity of Sacred Scripture. This claim is false for several reasons, which I will now explain. Jesus nor the Apostles ever quote from Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. Yet protestants that use this argument include them in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, including Calvinists (like Carm). Carm's attempt also plainly tries to downplay instances in which it is quite clear that Jesus and the Apostles are (sometimes seemingly word for word) repeating what the deuterocanonical books say. A simple google search will demonstrate that there are quite a bit more than "various allusions" to the books in question. Beyond this however, it is also important to note that by textual criticism, we do know that Jesus and the Apostles were quoting the Old Testament from the LXX (Greek Spetuagint) Bible, which in fact did include the deuterocanonical books (e.g. Mark 7:6-8 quotes the LXX (Septuagint) version of Isaiah). This begs the question, why would Jesus and the Apostles be using a Bible that included the deuterocanonicals, and that further, made no distinction between the books (e.g. the LXX did not include the deuterocanonicals in an index, or in a separate section called "Apocrypha" or any such thing).

Carm's Claim "2.  Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”"

Apostolic Apologetics Responds This argument makes all sorts of assumptions (incorrect ones). The first assumption is that Jesus is making a statement about the canon, which He is most certainly not. It also assumes that there was a consensus regarding the Canon among the Jews at the time of Jesus, despite the fact that no standard breakdown of the Canon of Scripture exists during this time period. Though an interesting attempt, the fact of the matter is that there was no notion of a closed canon of scripture at the time of Jesus. Not even among Jews was there complete agreement on the canon at this time, which is highlighted by the fact that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), and in fact were in constant conflict with other Jewish sects such as the Pharisees over various issues due to this. As Mark Shea says: "This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical."[1] Thus, it can be safely said (as a side-note) that Jesus himself experienced problems communicating the truth to those who adhered to Sola Scriptura.

Carm's Claim "Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.  In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles.  They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.  For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book.  This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today.  By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.  Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture."

Apostolic Apologetics Responds This portion of the argument is pretty much incoherent. While as I have stated, there was no concensus on the canon of Scripture at this time, even if we conceded for the sake of argument that there was a set order for the Tanakh at this time, Genesis being the first book and "Chronicles" being the last book says nothing about what was between them. It simply doesn't make sense as far as supporting the rejection of the deuterocanon. For example, the last book is claimed to be "Chronicles", which is part of the historical books, which includes a great deal of the deuterocanon. I would again mention here my earlier point that Jesus nor the Apostles ever mentions 1 Chronicles. Again, This "argument" doesn't make much sense and contains various errors. In general, the Hebrews referred to Scriptures in three ways: Five Books of Moses (Torah) - also sometimes called the Pentateuch, especially in Greek or Christian circles. Prophets (Nevi'im). Writings (Ketuvim). Had Jesus or the Apostles specifically referred to the "12 Prophets" (or Nevi'im Aharonim), this wouldn't exclude the major prophets, such as Jeremiah as being Canonical. No protestant would even argue this. As such, it's important to know that Jeremiah included Baruch, thus the references in general to the Nevi'im (Prophets) do not exclude deuterocanonical books. Specifically referring to the "12 Minor Prophets" (Nevi'im Aharonim) may be an attempt to obfuscate the matter further, though for now I'll chalk this one up to the apparent ignorance of the facts on the part of Carm (giving them the benefit of the doubt).

Alleged Rejection by the Jewish community

Carm's Claim "3.  The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation.  Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2"

Apostolic Apologetics Responds This argument contains error exclusively. The Douay Rheims Bible (my favored translation) renders Romans 3:2 thus: Romans 3:2 Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them. To be clear, Romans 3:2 says that the Jews were given God's Word. No disagreement there. It seems to me however, that in favoring a translation that renders the Greek "logion" as "oracles" can be misleading. Romans 3:2 is not teaching that the Jews were "oracles", as could be easily assumed by the unsuspecting reader, but again that God's Word (logion) was given to them. To expand the context here (which Ryan doesn't seem interested in doing), we need only start at the beginning of Romans Chapter 3. Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision? Here we see that Paul is clearly asking in so many words, "what advantage do the Jews have?". Think about this. Paul asks a rhetorical question here, about what advantage the Jews have, and then he answers it by saying they were given God's Word. Did that include the New Testament? No. So even if for the sake of argument, we conceded that the Jews had the authority to determine the Canon of Scripture, we would be left without the entire New Testament. Now let's suppose for the sake of argumentation that the Jews were only given the authority to decide the Old Testament. How does Carm expect to explain away the fact that the deuterocanon was part of the OT, written by Jews, and read by Jews for nearly 300 years before the coming of Christ, as Inspired Scripture? Carm doesn't address this issue, and instead operates on presupposition, hoping you will sympathize with their position rather than hear the facts. What's not addressed by Carm here is that while some, and only some Palestinian Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books, Palestinian Jews were the smallest group of Jews on the Earth at the time, and so even if they had all rejected the deuterocanonical books, being that they were largely in use by the rest of Jews spread around by the diaspora, the Palestinian Jews were in the minority on this matter. The final point here is that again, there was no consensus among Jews of this period. The canon was not closed, and the Jews would not attempt to do so until Christianity began to spread, which was interpreted as a threat to Rabbinical (Apostate) Judaism. The grounds on which some Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books included the belief that "Inspired Scripture" can only be written in Hebrew, while some of the deuterocanon is believed to be originally written in Greek or Aramaic (the latter being the case with Judith). So again, on this basis we would also have to logically exclude the entire New Testament from the Bible, were we to let Jews (lost and perplexed with the destruction of the temple and the spread of Christianity) decide for us the Christian Canon of Scripture. The second portion of Ryan's argument continues in error. Here's the deal. Ryan says: "Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God". This is an important point, and I would again like to recommend Mark Shea's document, 5 Myths about Seven Books, where Mark Shea puts the final nail in the coffin of this argument. When Jesus argued with the Sadducees, it's true, He didn't try to get them to accept the larger canon of the Pharisees, which included more than the Five books of Moses that the Sadducees consider the entirety of Scripture. So the point is, that just because Jesus didn't argue with the Sadducees about their incomplete Canon of Scripture, doesn't mean the larger canon (closer to what modern Jews accept now) includes books that aren't inspired. I would also like to note, just to expand on my remarks regarding who among the Jews accepted or rejected the deuterocanon, Protestants tend to cite Jerome on this issue, though Jerome was not the only early Christian to attempt a survey of what books Jews considered Scripture. Another relevant person in this story is Melito of Sardis. Melito's Canon excluded Esther, though protestants accept the book as Canonical, thus these surveys fail as a "final say" in what is canonical.

Carm Claims "4.  The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books.  This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books."

Apostolic Apologetics Responds Commentary on the Book of Genesis is the only commentary found at Qumran amongst the dead Sea Scrolls. It seems apparent to me that this conclusion is not based on original research by Carm or Ryan, but more probably something someone mentioned in passing that they felt supported their position. That point aside, once again the Dead Sea Scrolls did not include the Book of Esther (which Catholics, Jews and Protestants all consider as Canonical), but did include deuterocanonical books. So by this logic, we could conclude that the deuterocanonical books were held in higher regard than Esther, which again, is accepted as Canonical by Protestants, Jews, and Catholics alike. Another important point here is that of the deuterocanonical books actually found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was absolutely nothing indicating they were thought "less of" than the rest. They weren't set aside, separated out, or marked as "lesser" in any way. These facts shed light on some serious problems with Carm's argument here.

Carm Claims "5.  Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written."

Apostolic Apologetics Responds Again, an argument rife with error. Since the argument from silence seems convincing to Carm, they use it again. We've already discovered that since even Jesus Christ and the Apostles never quoted from Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon, that doesn't mean they're not canonical. Once again, protestants accept these books as Inspired Scripture, even with Jesus and the Apostles Silent on them. So the question is, if something can be canonical even if Jesus nor the Apostles quote them, why does Philo of Alexandria's silence on them mean more? Beyond that, there is more relevant information regarding Philo. It's quite apparent that Philo only accepted the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) as Scripture. So again, if we go with Philo, not only do we lose the entire NT (he was a Jew), but we loose everything in the OT after the Five Books of Moses. Now for Josephus. Note what Ryan says here. He says that Josephus held to 22 books. Earlier we were supposed to believe that the Hebrew Canon actually contained 24 books though. So if we accept Josephus' "canon", we lose two books from the Protestant, and Modern Jewish Old Testament. The following two statements are also false. Not all Jews acknowledged that prophetic gifts had ceased at the time of Josephus (who lived 3 centuries after the deuterocanonical books were initially authored by the way). To the contrary, Josephus never says prophetic gifts have ceased, and Carm nor anyone else can quote Josephus to that effect. To the contrary, Josephus openly acknowledges prophet gifts continue in his own lifetime. For anyone looking to substantiate my claim, have a look at the following table (thanks to Gary G. Michuta [2]). The document this image comes from is a word document by Gary G. Michuta (author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger). See the reference above the image for a link to that site, which discusses Josephus regarding the deuterocanon in much greater detail than I will endeavor to do here. I have also included a local copy of this document at the bottom of this page (see "Attachments").