[It’s
been long-overdue that this article was supposed to be posted]
A
Lutheran scholar named Arnold C. Sundberg once wrote:
“The criteria that Protestants use to
exclude these books (the 7 Books in Old Testament) from scriptures are completely
useless because they would exclude other books that Protestants accept as
canonical” – The Old Testament canon of
the Early Church
Mr.
Sundberg is correct; you cannot apply one standard
for those books that you reject then
relegating another set of standard for
those you accept:
Standard1: God used the Jews to preserve His
words; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the
Apocryphal books (the 7 Books in Old Testament) from the canon of Scripture.
According
to this standard, we must accept Jew’s
judgment in rejecting the 7 Books simply because God used Jews to preserve His words. But this standard is NOT applicable when they referred to their accepted books like the New Testaments
that Jews had been rejected or when Jew deliberately changed
some verse in the Old Testament.
Here’s
a wonderful apologetic article wrote by Mr. Mark Shea [5 Myths
about 7 Books] that dealt on these an untenable standards:
Myth 2
Christ and the Apostles frequently
quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from
the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these
books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.
This
myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals
Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the
Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament.
Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.
This
argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted
in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of
Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews
11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander
(quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals
canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?
Second,
if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the
protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would
include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old
Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the
New Testament.
The
other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New
Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical
books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance,
Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he
will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and
torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and
try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his
own words, God will take care of him."
This
passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their
accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So
he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will
believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For
he said, ÔI am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).
Similarly,
St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25.
Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ
Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree
shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his
mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast
of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast
day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is
nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this,
consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast:
"Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods'? If he called
them Ôgods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the
world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah,
speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set
apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees
10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His
Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the
books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the
Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called
"apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts
of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14;
Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired,
prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New
Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the
deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.
Myth 3
The deuterocanonical books contain
historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired
Scripture.
This
myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the
deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is
fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the
deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it.
First,
from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the
deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of
history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of
Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head
that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How
can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would
endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other
incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors"
happen.
Let's
take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. The Church
teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in
mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to
assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.
For
example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There
was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when
it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. So
too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich
man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it,
Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men
in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and
poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his
adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he
was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb
at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the
Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other
examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not
truth claims about astronomy or historical events.
Similarly,
both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not
because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because
they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested
with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives
in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes
out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the
uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant
Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval
history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a
time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit
and Judith to get a history lesson.
Very
well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith
lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to
King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting
in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant
that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was
eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her
intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing
something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical
example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about
the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did
not have a right to the truth—if they told the truth, he would have killed
Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so
must Exodus.
With
respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that
his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On
the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels
unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When
Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending
Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first.
Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh
helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all
with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh
gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying
(with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we, of
course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original
Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so
much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth
about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any
fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of
Tobit aims to tell.
Myth 4
The deuterocanonical books
themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.
Correction:
Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that
is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach
opens with a brief preface by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is
translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book important and that,
"You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good
will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest
efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages." Likewise, the
editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the
book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, "I will bring my own story to
an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted;
if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."
That,
and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all seven
books and not just these two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture."
Several things can be said in response to this argument.
First,
is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility
really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the
customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient
writers in Middle Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say that
St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born abnormally" or as
being the "chief of sinners" (he mentions this in the present, not
past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless.
Second,
speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples
of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant
would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament
canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't remember whom
he baptized. Using the "It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit
talking" criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the
deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing
criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul
baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)?
1
Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the
principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that
his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that
certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord"
speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am
speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct "disclaimer of
inspiration" than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet
nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some
say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament,
simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.
Why
not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize that a writer can be writing
under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and
that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as "direct
dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, we even recognize
that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves,
such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't remember whom he had
baptized.
To
tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for
the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books
can tell the truth about themselves—that they think writing is tough,
translating is hard, and that they are not sure they've done a terrific
job—without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what
they wrote. This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the
books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained
fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.
Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person.
This is a supervised forum and the Admin of CatholicPoint retains the right to direct it.
We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations