Why 73

[Admin]

The Books called the Apocrypha consist of 14 books originally attached to the Greek Old Testament that were not in the Hebrew-written Bible. The Catholic church accepts seven of the original 14 apocryphal books referring to them as the deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical is attributed primarily to Augustine (354-430 C.E.), but opinion continued to be divided on the matter as evidenced by the fact that Roman Catholic Church Council of Trent saw the need to finalize the issue dropping three (The Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras) that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate.

“The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. ... That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon

Catholics argue that since these books were included in the Septuagint which dates from the 4th century BCE and was available when Jesus and the Christian writers were alive, these should be viewed as inspired. However, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included and there is evidence against the canonicity of the Apocryphal.


THE JEWS DID NOT ACCEPT THE APOCRYPHA AS PART OF THE SACRED WRITINGS : . The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today. Neither the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews nor Philo (leading first-century Jewish apologist) recognised the Apocrypha as part of the sacred writings.

JOSEPHUS

“There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty* comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited...From the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything has been recorded, but the records have not been accounted equally worthy of credit with those written before them, because the exact succession of prophets ceased.”​—Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163).

EARLY CHRISTIAN LEADERS:

JEROME

“Thus there are twenty-two books* . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” - Prologus Galeatus to the Vulgate

"... [the apocrypha] contain much that is faulty, and . . . it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay" Epistle to Laeta (McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopædia, Vol. 1, p. 290)

PRESENT DAY ACADEMIC OPINION

“They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; . . . are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit. . . ; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible. . . ; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles.”— Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51.


They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms. The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. They show themselves to be under pagan Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself. - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 p. 122
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305?q=Apocrypha&p=par#h=15