|
SUBJECT: Bible---the Apocrypha
QUESTION: Why does the Intercontinental Church of
God and Garner Ted Armstrong not use the Apocrypha?
ANSWER:
We do not quote it because it was not part of the original
cannon of the Bible. You are sure free to use it if that is
part of your belief.
Notice this from the International Standard Bible
Encylopaedia:
APOCRYPHA
I. Definition.-- The word Apocrypha, as usually understood,
denotes the collection of religious writings which the
Septuagint and
Vulgate (Jerome's Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (with
trivial differences) contain in addition to the
writings constituting the Jewish and Protestant canon. This
is not the original or the correct sense of the word, as
will be shown, but it is that which it bears almost
exclusively in modern speech. In critical works of the
present day it is customary to speak of the collection of
writings now in view as "the Old Testament Apocrypha,"
because many of the books at least were written in Hebrew,
the language of the Old Testament, and because all of them
are much more closely allied to the Old Testament than to
the New Testament. But there is a "New" as well as an "Old"
Testament Apocrypha consisting of gospels, epistles, etc.
Moreover the adjective "Apocryphal" is also often applied in
modern times to what are now generally called "Pseudepigraphical
writings," so designated because ascribed in the titles to
authors who did not and could not have written them (e.g.
Enoch, Abraham, Moses, etc.). The persons thus
connected with these books are among the most distinguished
in the traditions and history of Israel, and there can be no
doubt that the object for which such names have been thus
used is to add weight and authority to these writings.
SUMMARY
6. Summary: (1) Among the Protestant churches the word
"Apocrypha" is used for the books included in the Septuagint
and
Vulgate, but absent from the Hebrew Bible. This restricted
sense of the word cannot be traced farther back than the
beginning of the Reformation.
(2) In classical and Hellenistic Greek the adjective
apokruphos denotes "hidden" of visible objects, or obscure,
hard to understand
(of certain kinds of
knowledge).
(3)
In early
patristic Greek this adjective came into use as a synonym of
the classical Greek esoterikos.
(4) In later patristic Greek (Irenaeus,
etc.) and in Latin works beginning with Jerome,
Greek apokruphos meant non-canonical, implying inferiority
in subject-matter to the books in the canon.
(5) By the Protestant Reformers the term "apocrypha" ("apocryphal"
"books" being understood) came to stand for what
is now called the "OT Apocrypha." But this usage is confined
to Protestants, since in the eastern church and in the Roman
branch of the western church the Old Testament Apocrypha is
as much an integral part of the canon as Genesis or Kings or
Psalms or Isaiah. ~from
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia
Note: Just
reading this, you can see the problems there are with the
Apocrypha and why we chose not to refer to it to prove our
doctrines. The Bible is sufficient to prove our doctrines
and state our beliefs as well as to proclaim the gospel.
Here is another source that states perfectly why we do not
refer to them:
APOCRYPHA
APOCRYPHA. The name given by Jerome to a number of books
that in the LXX are placed among the canonical books of the
Bible but which, for evident reasons, do not belong to the
sacred canon. The term itself, a Gk. adjective in the neuter
plural (from apokruphos, "hidden, concealed") denotes
strictly "things concealed." But almost certainly the noun
biblia is understood, so that the real implication of the
expression is "apocryphal books" or "writings."
Old Testament Apocrypha. In its final quasi-technical
meaning of "noncanonical," in common use since the
Reformation,
the term specifically refers to the fourteen books written
after the OT canon was closed and which, being the least
remote from the canonical books, laid strongest claim to
canonicity. The OT apocryphal books have an unquestioned
historical and literary value but have been rejected as
inspired for the following reasons:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies
and anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices
that are at variance with inspired Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an
artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping
with inspired Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine
Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and
poetic and religious feeling.
~from New Unger's Bible Dictionary
Note: These 4
enumerated items are exactly why we do not refer to them.
For a third source, the Nelson's Bible Dictionary states:
APOCRYPHA, THE
None of these books were included in the New Testament
because they were judged as unworthy and not authoritative
by officials of the early church.
~from Nelson's Illustrated
Bible Dictionary
Note: We concur
with their findings.
You can also find similar sources on the Internet. If you
desire, we can send you sources that show the Bible is the
original cannon and except for some well know copyist errors
and one obvious addition by an individual (2
verses), that it is intact as God intended.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.
back to the top |