Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (6 page)

Our survey of the history of the Deuterocanon has now
reached the end of the first century AD, to the point in time at which (as most
orthodox scholars believe) the giving of inspired Scripture to mankind came to
an end. The tradition of Protestantism has long been that Jesus and his
Apostles had received a closed, fixed canon of pre-Christian Scripture by this
point. This assertion, as we have already seen in our review of Sirach,
Maccabees, and the New Testament, is not based upon internal sources; no hint
of any such idea would have arisen from an impartial reading of scriptural
sources alone. What therefore, is the original source of this old Protestant
tradition? One of the most important of them, at least, is a passage written by
the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus well after the time of Christ.

Flavius Josephus lived from roughly AD 37–101. He belonged
to a distinguished priestly family in Palestine and in his youth he became a
Pharisee, though his political and religious views differed from theirs. When
the Jews staged a revolt against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire in AD
66, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem chose Josephus to command the rebel forces in
Galilee. The Roman General Vespasian eventually captured Josephus in the
fortress of Jotapata around AD 67 and imprisoned him. Despite this captivity,
Josephus curried favor with Vespasian by predicting that he would one day
become emperor, and his son Titus after him!  The prophecy came true and
Josephus was released. This sudden change of fortune allowed Josephus to
accompany the Roman troops into battle and thus witness the catastrophic fall
of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. These events are
documented in his work
The Jewish War.
Josephus also penned another work
called
The Jewish Antiquities
, which recounts Jewish history from
Creation to the Jewish Revolt of AD 66. He also wrote, around AD 90, an
autobiography as well, intending it as an apologetic against the Alexandrian
pagan grammarian Apion; it was entitled, appropriately enough,
Against Apion
.
It is this last work with which our present discussion is concerned.

Apion charged Josephus with fraud. He claimed that
Jewish
Antiquities
could not be true because the Hebrew race does not appear in
the best Greek histories until a relatively recent date.
[50]
Josephus responded by asserting that the
sacred historians of the Greeks were more concerned with impressing their
readers with literary eloquence than in producing an accurate account of
antiquity. Moreover, Josephus points out, the sacred histories of the Greeks
often contradicted one another.
[51]
The Jews, by contrast, took great care with their historical
texts, making certain that they were copied properly and carefully preserving
them from the most ancient of times. Here is what Josephus wrote:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books
among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,]
but only twenty-two books
, which contain the records of all the
past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to
Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till
his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but
as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of
Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote
down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books
contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.
It is
true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but
hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our
forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since
that time;
and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own
nation is evident by what we do
; for during so many ages as have already
passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any
thing from them, or to make any change in them;
but it is become natural to
all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain
Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die
for them.
[52]

Josephus is here stating, according to Protestant
apologists, that all prophecy ceased after the time of Artaxerxes (i.e. the
time of the events recorded in the book of Esther); it is impossible,
therefore, for the Deuterocanon to be inspired Scripture because only prophets
can write divinely inspired books. Josephus, in other words, believed that a
closed, fixed canon of only twenty-two books (i.e. the equivalent of the
Protestant Old Testament canon) had existed for hundreds of years by his time
and no other works were considered Scripture. Invariably, later rabbinical
statements are added to this common apology; for instance:

Until then, the prophets prophesied by means of the
holy spirit. From then on, give ear and listen to the words of the Sages.
[53]

When the last prophets—i.e., Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi—died, the holy spirit ceased in Israel. Despite this, they were
informed by means of oracles [Heb. bath qol].
[54]

This argument is fraught with numerous difficulties. We have
already seen that both Sirach and 1 Maccabees is completely unaware of any standing
cessation of prophecy; and the New Testament shows clearly that Jews of that
time were quite comfortable with the presence of prophets and prophecy.
[55]
The writings of
Josephus themselves contradict any strict understanding of the statements in
Against
Apion
. If all prophecy ceased after Artaxerxes, then we should not expect
to find any mention of prophets or prophecy in the other works of Josephus. The
historian presents, nevertheless, in his book
Jewish Antiquities
, dozens
of prophetic figures at work during this time.
[56]

Moreover, it must be noted that Josephus never stated that
“all prophecy ceased” after Artaxerses, nor did he say that a “succession of
prophets ceased.” He writes instead that an “
exact
succession of
prophets” ceased.
[57]
Remember the context of Josephus’ argument: Apion’s remarks were not intended
to attack the veracity of the whole of the Jewish canon. Apion conceded that the
Jewish race did exist at a later period, as seen in Greek histories. What Apion
questioned was the veracity of the
earliest
sacred records. Thus,
Josephus felt compelled to vindicate only the writings which came before
Artaxerxes (the Deuteros were, of course, written after that time). Why did
Josephus choose Artaxerxes? The oldest and perhaps best Greek histories begin
their historical narratives during Artaxerxes’ reign.
[58]
Josephus’ mention of later books adds a rhetorical
punch in that these latter histories lack the “exact succession of prophets” as
the former.

Scholar Rebecca Gray posits that for Josephus, the “exact
succession of prophets” means a continuous and sometimes overlapping historical
narrative.
[59]
Because
these narratives cover all the years during this period, they enjoyed a
succession and because there are no gaps within this coverage, the succession
is exact. Gray’s interpretation not only fits perfectly into Josephus’
apologetic, but it also permits the continuation of prophecy (and perhaps
prophetic or inspired books). Prophets and prophecy would be able to continue
after the time of Artaxerxes; such prophecies, however, would not be as highly
esteemed as historical documents because the period they cover contains gaps
and omissions (i.e. they do not have an exact succession).

Very well; is there any positive evidence that Josephus
did
consider the Deuterocanonical books (written, as they were, after Artaxerxes) to
be prophetic? Gigot believes there is:

At the close of his
Antiquities of the Jews
,
[60]
a work which narrates
the history between the Creation and the twelfth year of Nero, Josephus affirms
that his only authorities have been the
sacred writings
(heira bibloi)
,
although
in the course of his volume he has freely used the first book of the Maccabees
and transcribed literally several passages from the deutero-canonical fragments
of the books of Esther.
[61]
 

Protestants often disregard these comments on the “sacred
writings,” preferring to see the opinion supposedly expressed in
Against
Apion
as the historian’s definitive view on the subject. Josephus’ own
claim that
Antiquities
is based on the “sacred writings” is dismissed as
over exaggeration,
[62]
but his statements concerning Scripture in
Against Apion
1.41 are
clearly counterfactual.

Scholars who specialize in the writings of Josephus candidly
admit that he frequently resorts to bombast and exaggeration, especially in his
controversies with pagans.
[63]
Against Apion
1.41 is a good example. Immediately after his comments on
the twenty-two books, Josephus writes, “…so many ages as have already passed,
no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them [the twenty-two
books of Scripture], to take anything from them, or to make any change in
them.” We now know, from the discoveries made in Qumran that the text of Scripture,
in both Hebrew and Greek, circulated in a variety of different versions in
Josephus’ day. Some Jewish sects, like the Essenes of Qumran, showed no
scruples about editing the sacred text to their liking. These variant texts
could not have escaped Josephus’ notice; therefore, his words must be taken as
hyperbole. However, if Josephus was willing to over exaggerate knowingly the
widespread existence of a fixed text, can we trust him in his assessment on the
twenty-two books in
Against Apion
? As a historical source, Josephus’
comments are certainly impeachable.

The rabbinical citations included earlier (which allegedly
confirm the Protestant understanding of Josephus’ claim) were composed hundreds
of years after Josephus and after the Bar Kochba Revolt, which will be
discussed later. Based on Jewish legends of unknown origin, they were included
in the Mishnah and Talmudim in order to teach a specific (and wholly
unacceptable to Christians) lesson; namely, that the rabbinical sages of the
second century AD onwards are the successors of the prophets of old. Moreover,
the idea that prophecy ceased with Malachi or Zechariah is directly contrary to
the words of Christ Himself, who called John the Baptist “a prophet…and more
than a prophet” (Lk 7:26). It is an idea which, indeed, invalidates the entire
Christian revelation for those who receive it. It reflects the views of second
century Judaism, but not (as we have already demonstrated) any received opinion
dating from prior to the coming of Christ.

Let us consider now the question of whether the earliest
Christians considered the Deuterocanonical books to be divinely inspired.

Outside the pages of the New Testament, there exists a group
of very early Christian writings composed largely by the immediate successors
of the apostles; these books have come to be known as the works of
the
Apostolic Fathers
. Penned between AD 80 and 120, these books constitute the
earliest body of merely human Christian writing and thus they present us with a
truly invaluable glimpse into the mind of the infant Church. We include a
discussion of them in this section on the New Testament, not because we
consider them to be inspired or prophetic themselves, but simply because of
their close proximity to the time of Christ and the apostles.

First Epistle of Clement

St. Clement of Rome was the third bishop of that city after
the Apostle Peter.
[64]
He lived during the time of the apostles and very likely had personal contact
with them; several ancient accounts state that St. Clement was baptized by St.
Peter himself. Sometime around the year AD 80, St. Clement wrote a letter from
Rome, correcting and admonishing those in the church in Corinth who wrongfully
dismissed certain elders from their Church offices. The letter, called 1
Clement, was obeyed by the Corinthian Church and subsequently was held in high
esteem.

This very ancient book, written about the same time as the
Gospel of John, makes use of Deuterocanonical sources at least three times, and
each time with the deference such a great Christian elder would accord only to
an inspired source. 1 Clement 3:4 quotes Wisdom 2:24; that it is through the
envy of the devil that death entered into the world. The second citation, in 1
Clement 27:5-7, is a quote from (or at least an allusion to) Wisdom 11:21 or
12:12, followed immediately by a quote from Psalm 19:1-3.
[65]
Both the introductory words and the
unqualified quotation from the Psalms suggest that Clement accepted Wisdom as
Scripture.
[66]
Of even
greater interest is 1 Clement 55:2-6 in which St. Clement writes:

We know many among ourselves who have given themselves
up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered
themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves,
they might provide food for others. Many women also,
being
strengthened by the grace of God
, have performed numerous manly exploits.
The
blessed Judith
,
when her city was besieged, asked of the elders
permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to
danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then
besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman
.
Esther
also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger,
in order to
deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with
fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who seeth all
things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for
whose sake she had encountered peril.