Catholic position weak regarding apocryphal books

[callofduty]

Hey Guy’s,

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church had extra OT books. Recently I was looking at an original 1611 King James and original Geneva Bible and discovered they also contained these apocryphal books (although in a seperate section) I found out it had to do with the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

I asked a pastor via e-mail about this question and he responded that the Catholic position was a bit weak regarding this issue.

He responded;

“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. 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.”

I am no theologian and my attempts to research the question just left me more confused.

I figured it would be worth a try to get the information from Catholics, instead of biased sources. (my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

 

[wmscott]

Hey Guy’s,

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church had extra OT books. Recently I was looking at an original 1611 King James and original Geneva Bible and discovered they also contained these apocryphal books (although in a seperate section) I found out it had to do with the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

I asked a pastor via e-mail about this question and he responded that the Catholic position was a bit weak regarding this issue.

He responded;

“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. 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.”

I am no theologian and my attempts to research the question just left me more confused.

I figured it would be worth a try to get the information from Catholics, instead of biased sources. (my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

There are going to be some really good answers provided here for you to digest. Please tell me that you are not a troll and are you truly are interested in what the truth is.

Just a quick little bit of history. There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

I have provided an attachement (No credit to me) that may help.

 

[callofduty]

There are going to be some really good answers provided here for you to digest. Please tell me that you are not a troll and are you truly are interested in what the truth is.

Just a quick little bit of history. There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

I have provided an attachement (No credit to me) that may help.

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

I think what got me really interested in this subject was seeing the books in the original King James. Although the translators didn’t consider them canonical it made me wonder why folks in my Baptist crowd believe the Catholic Church “added them” at some reformation era council (Trent)

What gets me about why many Christians believe they don’t belong in the bible is the argument that the Jews didn’t consider them inspired. Also that passage in Maccabees where the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. If the books are inspired scripture that statement seems odd.

Thanks!

 

[_L]

Hey Guy’s,

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church had extra OT books. Recently I was looking at an original 1611 King James and original Geneva Bible and discovered they also contained these apocryphal books (although in a seperate section) I found out it had to do with the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

I asked a pastor via e-mail about this question and he responded that the Catholic position was a bit weak regarding this issue.

He responded;

“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. 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.”

I am no theologian and my attempts to research the question just left me more confused.

I figured it would be worth a try to get the information from Catholics, instead of biased sources. (my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

I don’t think the Catholic/Orthodox position is weak at all, rather the protestant position is weak because it is entirely dependent on the beliefs of the Jews rather than Christians. The Jews would also reject 27 other books which they considered false teaching and blasphemous and we know that as the New Testament, so I don’t think that they are the best authorities when it comes to a complete canon of the Bible especially when the age of the Church began after Christ. Early Church councils state that the so called apocrypha are to be counted among the Scriptures,

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. Books.
• The Chronicles, ij. Books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon.
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  THE NEW TESTAMENT.
• The Gospels, iv. books.
• The Acts of the Apostles, j. book
• The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
• The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
• The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
• The Revelation of John, j. book.
  Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our father to be read in church.

• 3rd Council of Carthage (August 28, 397 A.D.)

The above is just one example, but the councils of Hippo 393, Carthage 419 in addition to 397 as i listed all say the same.

Well the books weren’t added at the council of Trent, that is certainly misleading because they had been used since the time of the early Church. The Vulgate which was used universally throughout the Church in the west since its translation by Saint Jerome in the 400s and the Vulgate contained the so called apocrypha as well, and no in a separate section. Trent just dogmatically declared the matter closed to put all doubt to rest because prior to Trent and the reformation, there was no need for that to happen since no one questioned the authenticity of the canon before Luther.

Protestants often retroactively come up with these arbitrary criteria for what is Scripture, such as it has to be quoted in the NT and no where in the Bible does it say that, its just a rule people make in order to discriminate against the Deuterocanon when in fact several OT books that both sides considered inspired aren’t even quoted in the NT either so that argument seems to undo itself in my opinion.

I am certain the pastor failed to mention the Council of Jamnia, ( read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia )

Where many scholars such as Jewish Historian Heinrich Graetz says that the Jewish canon was decided here, and even other scholars place that decision at an even later date possibly even in the 2nd century AD. You can find this information anywhere, look in encyclopedia brittanica, it says the same, even in the protestant denomination the United Church of Christ produced film “how the Old Testament came to be” they also agree with the claim that the OT canon was decided in the late first century. If you are interested in the subject I also suggest this article: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/00-Introduction/Text/Articles/Newman-CanonJamnia-WTJ.pdf

rather lengthy but it has a wealth of information especially in the first few pages.

 

[Eloi]

What gets me about why many Christians believe they don’t belong in the bible is the argument that the Jews didn’t consider them inspired.

Some Jews did not; then again, some Jews thought only the five books of the Torah were inspired. “The Jews” did not have a set canon until after the 2nd Jewish War (nearing the end of the 1st century AD).

Also that passage in Maccabees where the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. If the books are inspired scripture that statement seems odd.

The apology doesn’t seem any worse than St. Paul’s “To the rest, I say (not the Lord): if any brother…” (1 Cor 7:12); the question is: is this verse inspired, or has Paul admitted he is not writing the Word of God? Of course, we’d say it is, in fact, the word of God, and Paul is using literary formulas; we say the same for the writer of Maccabees.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

I think what got me really interested in this subject was seeing the books in the original King James. Although the translators didn’t consider them canonical it made me wonder why folks in my Baptist crowd believe the Catholic Church “added them” at some reformation era council (Trent)

What gets me about why many Christians believe they don’t belong in the bible is the argument that the Jews didn’t consider them inspired. Also that passage in Maccabees where the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. If the books are inspired scripture that statement seems odd.

Thanks!

Just to give a little more food for thought. Why are there 2 different stories of creation in Genesis? Why are there 4 different verison of how Saul and David met in the Book of Samuel? Why does the Gospel of John say that Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers at the beginnign of his ministry and the others record it as happening the last week of it?

To me the Protestant arguement to exclud them and remove them is weak.

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

I think what got me really interested in this subject was seeing the books in the original King James. Although the translators didn’t consider them canonical it made me wonder why folks in my Baptist crowd believe the Catholic Church “added them” at some reformation era council (Trent)

What gets me about why many Christians believe they don’t belong in the bible is the argument that the Jews didn’t consider them inspired. Also that passage in Maccabees where the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. If the books are inspired scripture that statement seems odd.

Thanks!

That the writer of 2 Maccabees inserted such commentary is not unusual. Luke opened both his gospel and Acts with similar comments. That was part of the writing style for compiling a history in that time.

It is also important to note that the authors of scripture did not know they were authoring scripture at the time. They were just writing to meet a need. The gospels were written to record events in Jesus’ life. Epistles tended to be written to correct errors (not to teach). There were many more gospels and epistles written that did not make it into the canon than those that did. That does not mean they were any less correct.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hey Guy’s,

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church had extra OT books. Recently I was looking at an original 1611 King James and original Geneva Bible and discovered they also contained these apocryphal books (although in a seperate section) I found out it had to do with the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

I asked a pastor via e-mail about this question and he responded that the Catholic position was a bit weak regarding this issue.

He responded;

“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. 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.”

I am no theologian and my attempts to research the question just left me more confused.

I figured it would be worth a try to get the information from Catholics, instead of biased sources. (my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

No, the Catholic position is unassailable on this. Approximately 80% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament come from the Septuagent version of the Old Testament. THIS is the version we have always used.

The Jews didn’t decide on a canon for their Scripture (what we call the Old Testament) until the early second century. At that time, those Jews who had converted to Christianity were using the Septuagent to convert Jews to Christianity, so they were concerned. They came up with a set of guidelines, which ended up with only books written in Hebrew on Hebrew soil as being in their canon. This excluded the Deuterocanonical books (which Protestants refer to as Apocrypha, which is wrong, but that’s a discussion for another time, I think). Only in the early 1500’s did Martin Luther, for his own reasons, decide to adopt the canon used by the Jews (yes, the ones who rejected Jesus and Christianity). He didn’t like the support the Septuagent gave to doctrines he personally disagreed with (example: Purgatory). He also tried to get rid of the book of James and parts of the book of Hebrew. In other words, he put himself over and above the Bible. He also tried to change part of Romans, slipping in the word “alone” after the word “faith” to support his new, man-made doctrine of Sola Fide (saved by “faith alone”). His friends made him put James back, and the parts of Hebrew, and fix Romans.

You may find the following link helpful, too:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[callofduty]

.

Wow, great answers so far!

Does anyone know anything regarding Josephus and the Dead Sea scrolls?

“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.”

Seems convicing on the surface. ( especially for those who have no theological training, like myself)

Question;

It seems that the Catholic counter arguments rely on historical accounts of early Church councils that attest to the canonicity of the apoctyphal books.

Why can’t protestants use historical accounts such as Josephus to justify removing the books?

Thanks.

 

[Scoobyshme]

.

Wow, great answers so far!

Does anyone know anything regarding Josephus and the Dead Sea scrolls?

“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.”

Seems convicing on the surface. ( especially for those who have no theological training, like myself)

Question;

It seems that the Catholic counter arguments rely on historical accounts of early Church councils that attest to the canonicity of the apoctyphal books.

Why can’t protestants use historical accounts such as Josephus to justify removing the books?

Thanks.

Keep in mind that Protestantism didn’t begin till 1517 A.D. I would suspect they would be reluctant to use Catholic councils to prove anything. But I could be wrong. They could just not know much about the history of Christianty.

For the first 1000 years of Christianity, if one was Christian, one was Catholic. There was only one Church. Even the heretical groups that popped up here and there in history considered themselves Catholic, not a separate church. In 1054 A.D., the Orthodox split off, but unlike Protestantism, retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments.

 

[mark_a]

Hello and welcome, callofduty

Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament,

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

(my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

A popular mistaken view. Some nice short articles for ya:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503sbs.asp
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

PS- Whether you agree or disagree, we appreciate your humility and charity in the way you present yourself here.

 

[Church_Militant]

Weak? The only weak stuff is the new winds of doctrines of men that sprang up 500 years ago and have divided the Christian faith into thousands of denominations.

• “5 Myths about 7 Books”
• The Amazing Book of Sirach (This Rock: July-August 2001)
• COUNTING THE CANON (This Rock: June 1998)
• FOUR HUNDRED SILENT YEARS? (This Rock: March 1998)
• Lamentations & Baruch (This Rock: November 1995)
• The Council That Wasn’t (This Rock: September 2004)
• Books of the Bible, part 2
• Catholic Analysis: The Dead Sea Scrolls And the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament

 

[djrakowski]

Here’s a side point I find interesting, if not convincing on its own: why does anyone care whether the Jews accepted these books as canonical? They rejected Our Lord, so why should we accept what they have to say in determining a canon for followers of Christ?

 

[Humble_Pie]

Why can’t protestants use historical accounts such as Josephus to justify removing the books?

They can if they want to. I’d simply be curious why protestants would trust the opinion of a guy who didn’t believe any of the New Testament was Scripture (and subsequently rejected the Divinity of Christ) over the opinion of the Catholic Church, which has maintained the 73 book Canon for 2000 years.

I’d also remind them that Josephus references a 22 book Canon, but doesn’t provide any further details of the exact books. Its interesting to see that the modern Hebrew Bible doesn’t have 22 books in it, so either Josephus or modern Jews are/were wrong.

Most importantly, the simple historical fact is that the Jews did not have anything near a closed Canon until significantly after Christ’s death.

 

[callofduty]

.

You know, it just occured to me that if the books were included in the Greek OT the Jews were using at the time of Christ, some group of Jewish scholars must have translated them. Why wouldn’t they have said “wait, these seven books are not in our traditional canon” and thrown them out back then.

Does anyone have any info on the specifics of the Septuagint and who did the translating and what criteria was used?

Also, someone made the comment that some Jews only considered the first five books of the OT to be inspired. I never heard that before. Can anyone elaborate?

Again, thanks for the responses. I have much to consider so far.

 

[Humble_Pie]

.

You know, it just occured to me that if the books were included in the Greek OT the Jews were using at the time of Christ, some group of Jewish scholars must have translated them. Why wouldn’t they have said “wait, these seven books are not in our traditional canon” and thrown them out back then.

Does anyone have any info on the specifics of the Septuagint and who did the translating and what criteria was used?

Also, someone made the comment that some Jews only considered the first five books of the OT to be inspired. I never heard that before. Can anyone elaborate?

Again, thanks for the responses. I have much to consider so far.

To my knowledge, it was the Saducees who only accepted the Torah (first 5 books).

 

[wonkowasright]

If you spend some more time in the KJV facsimile edition that is online, at sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible
You will notice many things.

One of which is the cross references in the NT and Duetero/Apocrypha showing how each use each other. They fact they were used by Christ and the Apostles was known but has, in some circles, become lost knowledge.

Get a copy of the RSV and read Wisdom of Solomon last bit of Ch 1 and all of Ch 2 and maybe a touch of Chapter 3. What you will observe is the immensley christological prophecies. Now compare to the Matthew passages where Christ speaks of the wicked and adulterous generation asking for a sign no sign but jonah and all of that. And Christ even refers to the Wisdom of Solomon by name. I say RSV because its the most obvious in that rendering.

There are several parts of Matthew that continue pointing out the fulfillment of Wisdom there in a very real sense.

Use the RSV and you might see it. If you don’t let me know and I’ll try to post some more later.

The Dueterocanonical books were included in most bibles until in the 1800’s the Bible Societies omitted them from printing. They remained part of the liturgical readings of the Anglicans and still do. In Lutheran churches, for instance the LCMS, they remained in the pulpit bibles and even printed Bibles until they switched to English during WWI. They were likewise part of the liturgical readings but since they switched to English they have fallen away from useage.

As to Judaism. There are jewish communities that do still use these books. There are also Jewish prayer books available online that show how they do in fact read from these books during some of their services even in the last 100 years. If you like I can send you links.

Most everything within Catholicism that drives protestants crazy actually predates the church and is inherited from judaism itself.

 

[wmscott]

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

I think what got me really interested in this subject was seeing the books in the original King James. Although the translators didn’t consider them canonical it made me wonder why folks in my Baptist crowd believe the Catholic Church “added them” at some reformation era council (Trent)

What gets me about why many Christians believe they don’t belong in the bible is the argument that the Jews didn’t consider them inspired. Also that passage in Maccabees where the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. If the books are inspired scripture that statement seems odd.

Thanks!

Thanks Callofduty, I appreciate you honesty and willingness to listen to the other side. I understand if you do not believe or accept, but at least you are respectful and want to know what the Catholic Church teaches. Peace be with you from a convert and former Southern Baptist.

 

[mark_a]

To my knowledge, it was the Saducees who only accepted the Torah (first 5 books).

And nowhere is scripture does Jesus call them out for it.

 

[Humble_Pie]

The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls stated that the Apocrypha wasn’t inspired.

I’d be interested in his source for this claim, especially considering the fact that the DSS included at least 3 of the 7 deuterocanonical books, written in Hebrew and Aramaic.