Errors in the Apocrypha?

[JonNC]

Just speculating, but I think po means that in the books Catholics consider apocryphal, there are errors, but in the Deuterocanonical books, there are no errors on faith and morals (even if there are historical errors).

Jon

 

[dmar198]

Just speculating, but I think po means that in the books Catholics consider apocryphal, there are errors, but in the Deuterocanonical books, there are no errors on faith and morals (even if there are historical errors).

Jon

Catholic doctrine on divine revelation excludes any errors in the Deuterocanonical books, whether doctrinal, historical, or otherwise.

Nonetheless, some Catholics argue that there is fictional material in the Deuterocanonical books, and if I understand correctly, that opinion squares just fine with the Catholic doctrine on divine revelation. Some scholars argue that Judith and Tobit are early examples of “historical fiction,” for example. And to my mind, if an author does not intend to teach history, but makes up material in order to teach a moral point, then I don’t count the made-up material as errors. To me, there are no historical errors where there is no history recorded.

 

[JonNC]

=dmar198;12095962]Catholic doctrine on divine revelation excludes any errors in the Deuterocanonical books, whether doctrinal, historical, or otherwise.

Thanks for this.

Nonetheless, some Catholics argue that there is fictional material in the Deuterocanonical books, and if I understand correctly, that opinion squares just fine with the Catholic doctrine on divine revelation. Some scholars argue that Judith and Tobit are early examples of “historical fiction,” for example. And to my mind, if an author does not intend to teach history, but makes up material in order to teach a moral point, then I don’t count the made-up material as errors. To me, there are no historical errors where there is no history recorded.

And I like your last sentence.

Luther seems to agree with this assessment:

Some people think this is not an account of historical events [Geschichte] but rather a beautiful religious fiction [Gedicht] by a holy and ingenious man who wanted to sketch and depict therein the fortunes of the whole Jewish people and the victory God always miraculously granted them over all their enemies. This would be similar to the way Solomon in his Song poetizes and sings of a bride, vet means thereby not some specific person or event but the whole people of Israel. St. John, in his Apocalypse, and Daniel likewise sketch many pictures and beasts; yet these pertain not to specific persons but to the totality of Christian churches and [to the various] empires. And Christ our Lord himself likes to make use of parables and fictions like this in the gospel. He compares the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens [Matt. 25:1–13], or to a merchant and pearls [Matt. 13:45], a baker woman [Matt. 13:33], a grain of mustard seed [Matt. 13:31–32], or to fishermen and nets [Matt. 13:47–49], or to shepherds and sheep [Matt. 18:12–14], and the like.

Such an interpretation strikes my fancy, and I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious, composition.

Now the names fit into this sort of an interpretation extraordinarily well. Judith means Judea [The Latin word Judaea used here can mean either a Jewish woman (Jewess) or the land of Judah. Luther uses it in the latter sense. The Hebrew Yehudith means simply “Jewess” and then by allegory the Jewish people. It should be noted, however, that it is the personal name of Esau’s wife who was not a Jew but a Hittite (Gen 26:34)], (that is) the Jewish people. She is a chaste and holy widow; that is, God’s people is always a forsaken widow who is nevertheless chaste and holy, remaining pure and holy in the Word of God and in the true faith, mortifying herself and praying. Holofernes means worldly leader or governor, a heathen, godless, or un-Christian lord or prince—as all enemies of the Jewish people are. Bethulia (a city nobody knows) means a virgin [Luther connects the name of the city with the Hebrew bethulah, meaning virgin], indicating that at that time the believing and devout Jews were the pure virgin, free from idolatry and unbelief, as described in Isaiah [37:22] and Jeremiah [14:17; 18:13; 31:4], which is also why they remained unconquerable, though they were in distress.

It may even be that in those days they dramatized literature like this, Just as among us the Passion and other sacred stories are performed. In a common presentation or play they conceivably wanted to teach their people and youth to trust God, to be righteous, and to hope in God for all help and comfort, in every need, against all enemies, etc.

**Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them. **

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point out that the DC books are not in error as when they were written, the writers were not using history in the way we as modern man understands it. They were written to make moral and ethical points that the hearers and reader of the time would have understood.

Also the term apocrypha in Protestant parlance designates 15 works all of which are Jewish in nature and found in the LXX. In Catholic parlance the term apocrypha designates ancient Christian and Jewish books pretending to be from the biblical period that were not been accepted as genuine Scripture by the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

There’s already been some great refutations in this thread. I just wanted to add that, with regards to #1, I’m not sure how this is any different than Christ using mud to heal a blind man.

Anyway, if you go to any anti-Christian sites, you’d see similar accusations as the five in the link in the OP directed against other books of the Bible. I’m sure the author would jump through any hoops necessary to explain those alleged “errors,” yet here he does the opposite…

As a final general point, he considers these to be errors compared to his own religion, never once considering that it is actually his religion that is in error compared to these books Christians long viewed as Scripture before his religion was even invented.

 

[po18guy]

Just speculating, but I think po means that in the books Catholics consider apocryphal, there are errors, but in the Deuterocanonical books, there are no errors on faith and morals (even if there are historical errors).

Jon

You are sharper than I am, Jon. There have always been writings known as apocrypha (non-inspired), and even some known as pseudographia (false or forgeries). The Church was late to set the canon in stone, but those seven books, as we see from Qumran and elsewhere, were used by the pious even before Christ. The Deuterocanon reveal things that could not have been known by man unless revealed by God. They have been used in the Mass and Divine Liturgy of both eastern and western Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, since copies were available to the nascent Church.

Evangelical convert Mark P. Shea wrote an article about the Deuterocanon that might help to clear up some of the long-standing misinformation about them.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I purchased a New American Bible a couple weeks ago since I am new to Catholicism and I just read Tobit this morning for the first time since taking a college old testament class.

The Bible I purchased has footnotes and commentary, and it says that Tobit, Judith and Esther, while they may contain some historical fact, are really novellas told primarily to illustrate truths that transcend history. I didn’t see any magic in the book, but the angel Raphael did instruct Tobiah to use the smell of the smoke of burning fish heart and liver to drive a demon away, and to pray. I don’t think that’s magic, or if it is, there’s a whole lot of magic in the Bible. I prefer to think of them as miracles showing the power of God.

Question for those who are experienced Catholics - is Tobit commonly believed to be “true” or is it considered a novel useful for teaching and edification? I’ve always thought Esther to be historical fact, but the commentators in this new Bible say not.

The footnotes in the New American Bible are not written to explain a Catholic intepretation. They are merely scholarly notes which for the most part give information about historico-critical information, which in some cases may be (arguably) contrary to Catholic doctrine. One infamous example is a footnote from Genesis in the story of Ishmael and Hagar being cast out of Abraham’s house which explains that it has inserted a contradiction in the translation that is not actually present in the text in order to reflect what someone guessed was an original contradiction between the different sources that were combined into the current book of Genesis (look up the “documentary hypothesis”)! In short, the NAB notes should not be taken at face value, much less as teaching definitive Catholic doctrine. The scholarly opinions expressed therein should be taken only as representative of the opinions of modern scholars (not necessarily Catholic scholars) and nothing more.

The opinion that books like Judith are parables can be held by a Catholic in good standing as far as I know, but that is not the traditional belief among Catholic thinkers. Tradition is not always right of course, but no Catholic is forced to believe that Judith is a parable.

 

[acseawell]

The site lists five objections:

1. 
   *]It says Tobit 6:5-7 is about using magic to scare away the devil
   *]It says Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 teach that our own human efforts can atone for our sins
   *]It says 2 Maccabbees 12:43 teaches that money can atone for the sins of the dead
   *]It says Judith 1:7 calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians when he was actually the king of the Babylonians
   *]It says Baruch 6:2 foretells that the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations when it was actually 70 years
   The first objection is wrong because Tobit 6:5-7 doesn’t mention magic. It says that an angel told Tobias to burn the heart and liver of a fish to free a person from demonic oppression, because the demon would smell the smoke and flee. This is not because the fish was magic and the text does not say it was. Instead, the text indicates that the fish’s parts were a sacrifice offered as a prayer of deliverance. Tobit 6:16-17 and Tobit 8:2 make this clearer by specifying that the fire had to be produced by means of incense and/or an incense censor. In the Old Testament, sacrifices were offered for the sins of the people, and the fish has messianic significance. This offering of deliverance backed up by the power of the Messiah was what caused the oppressing demon to become fearful when he smelled the fish offering. The interpretation that the fish was magic has no support in the text; the interpretation that the fish was a sacrifice for sins does have support in the text. CARM is wrong on this one.
   
   The second objection is faulty because it misunderstands what Tobit says about human effort atoning for sin. Proverbs 16:6, 1 Peter 4:8, James 5:20, and Luke 11:39-41 shed light on this because they also talk about human effort atoning for sin, and the key is that expiating or atoning for our sins requires the blood of Christ as the foundation. Human good works can only acquire merit before Jesus if we are in a state of grace and forgiveness already, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible reveals good works too and says that they really can help us spiritually to acquire forgiveness for sins committed after we are in the state of grace. Tobit 4:11, Tobit 12:9, Proverbs 16:6, 1 Peter 4:8, and James 5:20 all use the language of atonement to explain this.
   
   The third objection is faulty for several reasons. First, the passage does not say money can atone for sins, and that is a terrible way to talk about almsgiving. The merit of almsgiving has nothing to do with its being money and everything to do with its being a form of prayer. When you give away your money as an act of charity, it is a sacrifice of something of material value for the sake of something spiritual. St. Paul says that money can be an offering in Philippians 4:18. He mentions that almsgiving has spiritual merit in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. Jesus says that if we give alms for what is in our hearts, everything will be clean – Luke 11:39-41. This is all because when you offer something of value, it is a form of prayer, and God can answer that prayer for our own salvation. This objection is really based on CARM’s rejection of prayers for the dead – but the Bible contains both prayers and suffrages for the dead in Psalms 35:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:16-18, 2 Samuel 1:12, and 1 Samuel 31:13. Almsgiving for them is just another form of that.
   
   The fourth objection is wrong because Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians too. The Babylonian empire included the former capital of Assyria and its territory. Notice: Judith 1:7 does not say Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria but of the Assyrians, who were still around even though their country was no longer independent. 2 Kings 24:1-2 even says explicitly that God gave “bands of Syrians” to King Nebuchadnezzar and he sent them against Judah. So the rest of the Old Testament confirms what Judith says was happening here.
   
   The fifth objection is wrong because it misunderstands the prophecy of Baruch 6:2-3. First of all, it does not say the Captivity would last for seven generations, but for “up to seven generations,” “for a long time,” “for many years.” Secondly, Baruch 6:2-3 and Daniel 9:3, 21-27 both give a greater number of years than the actual 70 mentioned in Jeremiah 25:11 – one reason is because the true, inner captivity would last until the Messiah came, and the prophet Daniel gives the amount of time (seventy times seven) that would bring them up to the time of the Messiah. Baruch says it will last “up to seven generations,” or 280 years, which brings them up to the time when the Maccabbean revolt reestablished Jewish independence.
   
   Okay, so there’s all five objections. I hope that helps. Also, you can use logic to show that the Deuterocanonical books are Scripture. For example, the same Councils that determined the rest of the Bible also included the Deuterocanonical books. See the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage at this page: catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon If Protestants think they got it wrong about the Deuterocanonical books, why don’t they go the rest of the way and throw out the other books? If these councils got the Deuterocanonical books wrong, then they weren’t telling the truth, and the Canon of Scripture goes out the window. Protestants can’t have it both ways: if they want a Bible at all, they ought to take the whole thing as decided by the early Church. If they cut out parts they don’t like, then they clearly don’t trust the early Church, and have no reason to accept their judgment about the books they do accept.

1. 
   Well put! True_Faith13 needs to spend more time on Catholic apologetics

 

[po18guy]

Well put! True_Faith13 needs to spend more time on Catholic apologetics

Someone mentioned that the alleged errors were from CARM. Well, you are right. When looking at the Catholic Church, one should not look away from it.

Our Lord says “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”** Mark 16:16**

Slick Matt says, “Baptism? Fuhgeddaboutit. Just believe”

Whom do you believe?

 

[Cathoholic]

Just a brief point of clarification.

Many Bible Christians erroneously call Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament . . . “The Apocrypha”.

I suppose the first question should be, "What do you mean by “the Apocrypha”?

The Deuterocanonical Books of Sacred Scripture (just as the Protocanonical books) are not “Apocrypha” at least in the modern-day sense of the word “apocrypha”**.

** For many more details about the use of the word “apocrypha” both ancient and modern, please see “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible” by Gary Michuta (here).

There are Protocanonical books in the Old Testament and there are Protocanonical books in the New Testament.

Likewise there are Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and there are Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament.

All of these books are inspired Sacred Scripture. All of the Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and all of the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament are inspired error-free Sacred Scripture.

All Scripture is inspired by God.

Apocryphal books on the other hand, are NOT Sacred Scripture.

Apocryphal books may have lots of errors or few.

But don’t equate Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament (Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as the fuller of the books of Daniel and Esther) as apocrypha. At least how we use the word “apocrypha” today.

**
Deuterocanonical Old Testament Books (Part Of Inspired Sacred Scripture) **

• Sirach
• Tobit
• Wisdom
• Judith
• 1st Maccabees
• 2nd Maccabees
• Baruch
• The full version of the book of Daniel
• The full version of the book of Esther

Below is a partial list of Old Testament era Apocryphal books (again, these are NOT Sacred Scripture)

• The Book of Henoch (“The Book of Enoch”)
• Assumption of Moses
• Book of the Secrets of Henoch (Again “Enoch”)
• Fourth Book of Esdras (Fourth Ezra)
• Apocalypse of Baruch
• The Apocalypse of Abraham
• The Apocalypse of Daniel

For more info on this see here

You may also want to see ***5 Myths about 7 Books ***by Mark Shea

The deuterocanon (ie. “second canon”) is a set of seven books — Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term “apocrypha.” This group of books is called “deuterocanonical” not (as some imagine) because they are a “second rate” or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. . . .

So if in the original post “Are there errors in the Apocrypha?” if by “Apocrypha” it is meant non-Scriptural books such as The Book of Enoch, there may be errors.

But in the title: “Are there errors in the Apocrypha?” . . . If “Apocrypha” here means . . . . "Are there errors in the Deuterocanonical books and you are thinking about Deuterocanonical Old Testament books such as 1st and 2nd Maccabees the answer would be “No”. There are no errors in these books.

 

[po18guy]

Notice that Slick Matt decries the Catholic claim of infallibility, but he is absolutely certain of his own condemnation of God’s word. There is a term for such behavior and it is not complimentary.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Well put! True_Faith13 needs to spend more time on Catholic apologetics

I think it’s part of my scientific mind …in looking into Catholicism, I of course look to the Catholic Church first, but then will search out the “criticisms” and then ask you guys here what you think and visa versa. It’s been an interesting method since you guys have been great at giving me clear, concise, answers backed up by scripture to refute (is that the right word?) criticisms, yet when I do the same to the Protestants for let’s say sola Scriptura, they can’t.

 

[Muzhik]

I think it’s part of my scientific mind …in looking into Catholicism, I of course look to the Catholic Church first, but then will search out the “criticisms” and then ask you guys here what you think and visa versa. It’s been an interesting method since you guys have been great at giving me clear, concise, answers backed up by scripture to refute (is that the right word?) criticisms, yet when I do the same to the Protestants for let’s say sola Scriptura, they can’t.

I can’t help but think about “the wheels of history grind slowly, but grind oh so fine” or “time is the strongest acid” – whatever is left is stronger than any acid or any argument to refute it. Close to 700 years passed before there was any serious debate over the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Until then, it was simply believed as a truth handed down from the time of the apostles. The Bible existed in the Catholic form for over 1,000 years before Luther and Calvin started editing it. I somehow doubt that the Holy Spirit would have waited 1,000 years before making clear any “corrections”.

IOW, if they claim that it was the power of the corrupt Church that kept the truth from being revealed, what does that say about the power of the Church in the year 400 over the power of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit had 3 different councils in the late 300s where the canon was being decided, and yet chose not to. If they claim that the Church was not being led by the Spirit, then who was the Spirit leading? Certainly not one of the heretical Gnostic sects, or ones that denied the divinity of Christ. There were no other games in town. So if the Spirit was not leading the Church at that time, then that must mean the Spirit had abandoned the Church, and left her abandoned for hundreds of years. That doesn’t sound like a very “Holy Spirit-y” thing to do.

BTW, if someone tries to tell you that Luther was the one who opened the Bible to the masses by translating it into German, ask them to go to the web and check out the sites that sell antique books. You’ll find dozens upon dozens of examples of different books of the Bible published in German long before Luther did his editing work. The Church did not say that Scripture could not be read in your native language; it only said that when discussing Scripture you had to use the Vulgate Latin version, so everyone would be “singing from the same page”, as it were. “Vulgate” comes from the same root as “vulgar”, meaning “common”. It was Scripture translated into the common Latin spoken by the common man or woman in the street, as opposed to Greek or Literary Latin – a very flowery form that would have been more difficult for the common person to understand than Shakespeare is to many Americans today. The Vulgate version wasn’t to keep Scripture from people; it was to make it more accessible to the people living at the time it was translated.

(yes, “refute” is the right word.)