Ecclesia Militans: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin

By John - webmaster Ecclesia Militans

This article is being written in response to another article, found on the Jesus is Lord website, entitled "Why the Apocrypha isn’t in the Bible."

The author of the article in question provides a listing of his reasons as to why he does not include the so-called "apocrypha" in his version of the Bible, and it is this listing that we shall respond to - the remainder of the article is, for the most part, irrelevant. This listing seems to be taken, for the most part, from the writings found on David Riggs’ "Interactive Bible Homepage," so I ask the reader not to be surprised to find many of the same arguments I used in my previous article refuting David Riggs (The Deutero-Canonicals) in this refutation as well.

Before I continue to refute my opponent’s "reasons," permit me to ask my opponent several questions. First, by what authority do you declare that the Deutero-Canonical books are, indeed, apocryphal? Second, by what authority do you dare to take it upon yourself to decide which books are canonical, and which are not? Third, how do you know that you can’t be mistaken in this matter?

In order to answer these questions you must provide an extra-biblical source, otherwise you are merely making use of a circular argument. I have the authority to judge which books are canonical because the book of Matthew (for example) states that I do, and Matthew is canonical because I have the authority to judge which books are canonical, which authority I get from the book of Matthew, and so on and so forth.

The source which you must quote must be extra-biblical, and infallible - for otherwise we are back to square one. How do you know which books are infallible and canonical? Can you be mistaken in this matter? If so, can you truly say that such and such a book is certainly and without a doubt infallible and canonical?

I ask the reader to note that I myself do not doubt the canonicity of any of the books in the Catholic Bible, or the fact that they are infallible. I am merely pointing out that my opponent cannot, if he wishes to keep his current set of doctrines and beliefs, know with any certainty which books are canonical and infallible, and which books are not. Which books are from God, and which books are not. He is a Johnny-come-lately to the religious scene, out on his own with a Bible which he doesn’t even know contains the entirety of the Scriptures. Thus it is that with one stroke we eliminate any possibility of his being able to definitely state that the Deutero-Canonical books are apocryphal, and that the Gospel of Saint John (for example) is not apocryphal but canonical - and thus falls the entirety of his argument against the Deutero-Canonical books.

As a formality, then, we shall go through and refute his fallible and erroneous reasons for excluding the Deutero-Canonical books from his Canon of Scriptures.

The author’s first point is as follows:

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

Let us hope that the author is acting in good faith and out of ignorance, and that he truly does not know the truth about the books in question, and this is the reason why he has made such an absurd statement as the above. Should our opponent be acting out of hatred for Holy Mother Church, then I must express my utter and complete disgust at his actions and blatant lies.

As it is, my opponent is easily proven wrong on this point, as St. Francis de Sales said in his famous book "The Catholic Controversy":

"I say the same to you about Ecclesiasticus, which S. Jerome had and found in Hebrew, as he says in his preface on the books of Solomon. Since, then, you reject these books written in Hebrew or Chaldaic equally with the others which are not written in one of these languages, you will have to find another pretext than that which you have alleged for striking out these books from the canon." (The Catholic Controversy, p. 97)

So do I say to the author of the article in question. You will have to find another pretext for taking these books out of the Canon, for the one which you have used does not justify the removal of several of the deutero-canonical books.

Furthermore, I would like to ask our opponent upon what does he base his assumption that any books of the Old Testament that are not written in Hebrew are not canonical? If he presumes to base his assumption upon a Bible verse, then I must ask him to provide this verse (or verses if there be more than one), that says that any book of the Old Testament which was not written in Hebrew is not canonical.

If our opponent can provide a Bible verse in support of this assumption, then we must ask him how he knows that the book he is quoting is truly the inspired and infallible Word of God, and to prove this point with evidence (extra-biblically). Can he ever truly and infallibly know which book is Canonical, and which book is not? According to my opponent everything outside the Bible is fallible, and the Bible alone is the infallible and inspired Word of God. Therefore, he cannot prove the canonicity or uncanonicity of any book of the Scriptures by use of fallible sources - so he must search and hope to find an infallible source which, for my opponent, is the Bible alone. So he must now prove his case by use of the Bible, and prove the Bible to be infallible and canonical by use of an infallible source. My opponent has quite a bit of work ahead of him, let us see if he is up to the challenge and if he truly can support his belief - or whether or not it is nothing more than a pack of lies and assumptions.

2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

Is it necessary for the author of a book to lay a claim to inspiration in order for the book to be inspired? If this is so, then let our opponent prove this point through the Sacred Scriptures - which he claims to hold as his sole written doctrinal authority. Furthermore, a claim of inspiration is not proof of anything for or against the book. For even the Koran claims to be inspired -- and I don’t know of any Christian who would want to include that in the Bible on that claim.

Lastly, let our opponent also show us where the authors of the other books of the Old and New Testaments all claimed inspiration for their writings, along with the accompanying chapters and verses.

3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

As St. Francis de Sales said:

As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jew, you say nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly exclaims: "It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as Canonical, but not the Jews." Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books as the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this either Scripture or reason to show for it. (The Catholic Controversy, p. 99)

So do I say to my opponent. As it is, the Jews also reject the entire New Testament, and yet my opponent does not reject the New Testament on these grounds. My opponent seems to use the opinions of the Jews only where they agree with his private opinions - elsewhere he rejects them. This is completely hypocritical.

Secondly, I would also like to point out that my opponent’s ignorance on this subject is again shown by his above statement. The deutero-canonical books - which he pretends are apocryphal - were accepted by quite a few Jews prior to the advent of Christianity. In fact, the Deutero-Canonical books are still accepted by the Jews in Ethiopia today. As the Encyclopedia Judaica says:

"The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books " (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)

Hence, it is completely ridiculous for the author of the article which we are responding to to make the absurd claim that the "Jewish church" rejected the Deutero-Canonical books - for 1) there is no such thing as the "Jewish Church," Judaism is no more unified than protestantism, 2) many Jews do accept the Deutero-Canonical books.

Thirdly, the Deutero-Canonical books were included in the version of the Scriptures used by Christ and the authors of the New Testament, as the following citation from the Encyclopedia Judaica shows:

"There are approximately 350 quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 quotations 300 come from the Greek Septuagint. It was the Old Testament Bible of the first century Christians. Jesus quoted from it. The Septuagint included the Deutero Canonical books which Protestants call the ‘Apocrypha.’ The Jews in Ethiopia to this day still follow the same identical canon which is found in the Catholic Old Testament which includes these seven Deutero Canonical books " (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)

The above citation from the Encyclopedia Judaica shows 1) the Septuagint included the Deutero-Canonical books, 2) the New Testament used the Septuagint at least 300 times when citing the Old Testament, 3) Christ quoted from the Septuagint. These facts are easily corroborated by numerous other works/authors. As the Rev. Dr. Milo Gates, one-time vicar of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Intercession, in New York City said in 1928:

"In the second place, no one can really understand the New Testament without knowledge of these books. There are more than 111 quotations and allusions to the Apocrypha in the New Testament.

"In the third place, some of the most blessed doctrines of the Church come from these books, and others we find developing in these books" (New York Times, Dec. 10, 1928)

That the Deutero-Canonical books were included in the Septuagint - and that the Septuagint was used by the authors of the New Testament - can be corroborated through numerous sources, too many to list here in their entirety. (Cf. Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Vol. 34. The Pocket Bible Dictionary, 1996. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 1904. A Dictionary of the Bible, 1954 p.799.)

But if our opponent dares to resist this claim that the Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by the New Testament authors and is used today by many Christians (with the exception of the Deutero-Canonical books), then let him answer these questions put forth by the famous Catholic apologist David Goldstein:

If the Septuagint version is invalid, then it is up to Protestants to explain why they give Greek Septuagint names instead of Hebrew names, or their English equivalent names to the books of Moses. Why call those books the Pentateuch instead of the Torah or its English designation, Instruction? Why Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (translation of the Greek Arithmoi), and Deuteronomy? Instead of the Palestinian Hebrew names, Bereshith, Shemoth, Vayikra, Bemidbar, and Debarim? Or their English equivalents, The Beginning, Names, And He Called, In the Wilderness, and Words? Why call the Book "The Bible," which is the Greek (Anglicized) name the Catholic Church gave the Septuagint in union with the New Testament? (What Say You? p. 256-257)

After reading the above, I’m sure the reader will agree with me that this - my opponent’s third "reason" for rejecting the Deutero-Canonicals - is insufficient, and cannot be his real reason for so doing, unless, of course, he is blindly ignorant on this subject.

4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

In the first place, the Catholic Religion is most certainly Christian, as I have proven elsewhere in my article entitled Is the Roman Catholic Church Christian? (in refutation of another preposterous article found on the "Jesus is Lord" website). In the second place, you cannot make the statement that the Deutero-Canonical books were "not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian Church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian)" for the Early Christians of that era were all Catholics, and not non-denominational protestants. In the last place, the early Catholics did indeed hold the Deutero-Canonical books as being "sacred books." As is sufficiently shown by the following citations from the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo:

(Council of Rome [A.D. 382])"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus).

(Council of Hippo [A.D. 393])"[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36).

(Council of Carthage III [A.D. 397])"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47).

All the above Councils took place before the end of the fourth century. After one reads the above decrees, the utter ridiculousness of the fourth reason given by my opponent for the rejection of the Deutero-Canonical books is quite apparent. Now it is up to my opponent to show that the above Councils did not have authority equal to that of the Jews when it comes to the question as to which books are a part of the Canon of the Bible.

St. Clement of Alexandria in the year 202 A.D., cites the book of "Sirach" (21:6) as "Scripture" (The Instructor, I:8), as well as the book of Tobit (The Stromata, 6:12). While Hippolytus cites the book of Baruch as Scripture (Against the Noetus, 2). Origen defended the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon [Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias [Daniel 3] and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace [Daniel 3] in his Epistle to Julius Africanus around the year 254. While in the year 248 A.D., Origen cited the book of Sirach 21:28 as Scripture. (Against Celsus,7:12) The following citation from Origen citing the Book of Maccabees as Scripture shows that it was accepted at that time (230 A.D.):

"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'[2 Maccabees 7:28]", (Fundamental Principles,2:2)

St. Cyprian in 252-258 A.D., cites the books of Tobit (Treatise 4,32), Sirach (Treatise 7,9), and the story of the three youths in Daniel 3:37-43 (Testimonies, 20. See also Treatise 4,8.), as Scripture several times in his writings. I could easily double or even triple this list of Early Christians who considered the Deutero-Canonical books to be Scriptural, but I believe that this, the fourth reason given by the anonymous author of the article in question for rejecting the Deutero-Canonical books, is sufficiently refuted by the information given above - and cannot be his real reason for rejecting them. Hence, we are forced to believe one of two things, either 1) he’s completely ignorant of the subject at hand, 2) he is attempting to deceive the readers of his article.

5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

I’ve checked both books, and have only been able to locate one time that Antiochus Epiphanes died . But, as it is, there were several Kings in the Maccabees with the title of "Antiochus." Epiphanes was the fourth one to take the name of Antiochus. Hence, we see another mis-interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

The above statement is made under the presumption that the Deutero-Canonical books are not Biblical at all. Such a presumption cannot be made by my opponent for he has yet to prove that they are not canonical, and that his interpretation of the other portions of Scripture is infallibly correct, and that he is not simply following the method used by Satan - pitting one Scripture verse against another and pretending that there are contradictions. As it is, a number of the verses which my opponent cites are perfectly true and correct, and do not disprove the Deutero-Canonical books as they are not at variance with the remainder of the Scriptures.

Some of the points which my opponent rightly claims three of the four verses cited teach are purgatory, the necessity of works for salvation, and the immaculate conception. My opponent has made a critical error.

As was shown above these books were widely accepted by the Jews and the Early Christians as Scriptural - which means that they all necessarily believed in the doctrine of purgatory, the necessity of works for salvation, *and* the Immaculate Conception - thus, my opponent gives to the Catholic Church hundreds of years of historicity for these doctrines. Furthermore, this also shows that these people did not consider these doctrines to be at variance with the remainder of the Scriptures, meaning that my opponent is alone in his personal and private interpretations - to quote Galatians 1:8:

But though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

The only verse/application which we shall pull out to refute is the one taken from the book of Tobias, which verse, my opponent claims, teaches magic.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5_8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Permit me to provide a quotation from the Haydock Bible which exposes the erroneous interpretation of my opponent:

God was pleased to give to these things a virtue against those proud spirits, to make them, who affected to be like the Most High, subject to such mean corporeal creatures as instruments of his power. Ch – God sometimes makes use of things as remedies which have, naturally, a different effect; as when Christ put clay on the eyes of the blind man. Jo. ix. The things which the angel ordered were salutary, by God’s appointment. W. – They could not act directly upon a spirit: but they might upon the person troubled by one, as Saul was relieved by music. C. Diss – The smoke was a sign of the devil’s expulsion and of the efficacy of prayer; or rather, God subjected the proud spirits to such weak elements. (The Hadyock Bible, Vol. I, p. 600)

Thus falls my opponent’s false interpretation of these verses.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

In 1 Samuel, chapter 28, Saul has recourse to a witch for help. Does that mean that the book was teaching "immoral practices," such as magical incantation? Or how about where Saul killed himself with his own sword in 1 Samuel, chapter 31? The point is, that throughout the Old Testament, immoral practices are to be found. They aren’t to be found in the Deutero-Canonical books alone. But, of course, this does not mean that simply because they are in the Bible the books are promoting such practices as suicide, recourse to witches, adultery, and so forth.

8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

In the first place, if the Deutero-Canonical books are canonical (which my opponent cannot possibly definitively contradict), then they would be included in the Old Testament. In the second place, even if what our opponent said is true - which I do not admit -, it really doesn’t prove a thing. As the following citation says:

Some have sought to determine the Old Testament canon by the usage of the New Testament: A book was canonical if the New Testament quoted it. But the New Testament does not quote some of the canonical books – Ruth, Qoholeth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and the Song of Songs. (Background to the Bible, p. 47)

Lastly, as the above-given quote from Rev. Milo Gates shows, the Deutero-Canonical books were, indeed, referred to quite often in the New Testament.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

This is more a conclusion than a reason to reject the Deutero-Canonical books. The author concludes, based upon his faulty reasoning and ignorance, that the Deutero-Canonical are apocryphal, and the states that they are only valuable as "ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East" - unwittingly granting to the Catholic Church the fact that the doctrines of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and so forth, were historically held opinions "of the East."

Thus fall my opponent’s reasons for rejecting the Deutero-Canonical books, unless he can provide other "reasons," he is now obligated to accept them - as he has no longer a reason to reject them.

In Our Lady of Victories,
John - webmaster Ecclesia Militans.

In Defense of the Deutero-Canonical Books