“Cross-Referencing Pt. 2”

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

In your post titled "Cross-Referencing", you mentioned that some Catholic printers do reference apocryphal books.  My original 1611 King James also has multiple cross-references to the apocryphal books… also, my Geneva Bible printed fifty years earlier.  The reason for this was that the New Testament authors were quoting the Septuagint.   Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora, and therefore, also the ancient church, used the Septuagint as authoritative Scripture.  The New Testament writers used and quoted the Septuagint, which included what modern Protestants call apocryphal books.  If a person says, “Our church is just like the first-century church,” then for that to be true, they’d have to use Bibles that include the Apocrypha.  My question is: under what authority did printing companies remove the apocryphal books found in all christian Bibles up to the 1800's?

Sincerely,
Book Worm

Dear Book Worm,

The Greek-speaking Jews never treated the apocryphal books as divinely inspired Scripture.  Even though some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, they were never considered God-breathed Scripture.  Printed Bibles include maps, commentaries, and footnotes… and yet, we don’t consider those things to be Scripture; in the same way, the Septuagint included apocryphal books that were never viewed as the Word of God.

It is well documented that Jews didn’t consider the apocryphal books to be authored by God.  Josephus, a venerated Jewish historian, specifically stated that the apocryphal books weren't from God in his writing Against Apion.  The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls stated that the Apocrypha wasn’t inspired.  To further prove the point, the Apocrypha itself says that it isn’t Scripture!  The apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, specifically says that it isn’t inspired by God in 15:38-39, and the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided.  Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament, and they were never accepted by the church or the Jewish community as divinely inspired text.  That is exactly why it isn’t necessary that they be included in modern translations of the Bible – they aren’t Bible, just secular history.

Share