Thoughts on the Canon


I had a conversation with a lady and a gentleman that I know. The conversation ran to why the apocryphal books a not found in Protestant translations of the Bible. I kind of blurted out some of the things I know about it and they really sort of just looked at me. I don't know, but when I believe that I know something I tend to speak with real confidence about it. I guess that since I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything that when I tend to talk that way it might be construed as a sort of arrogance. I don't mean it to be.

They wondered why those books weren't included, and if perhaps they really had something to offer believers. What I told them was that the New Testament books were either recorded by someone who was an eye-witness to the life of Christ, or by someone closely associated to such a person. I think they understood me, but wanted to know where I got that information. The answer is mostly to be found within those books and some extra-biblical historical writings by the early church fathers which confirms what came before.

Augustine was about the only one who included the additional books along with the canonical writings. It is my understanding however that he conceded that they were not authoritative. As far as I know, those books weren't accepted into the canon until the council of Trent around eleven hundred years after Augustine in 1546. That's when the Roman Catholic church decided to add them.

The thing is, the canonical writers of the New Testament included around two-hundred-fifty quotes from the Old Testament. They quote every book with the exception of Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. In the Apocrypha, there isn't a single Old Testament quote. That carried a lot of weight with those who settled on the books that we have in our Bible. What carries even more weight was the fact that Jesus made a statement in Luke 11 that helps to define some guidelines from which to work. He's going after the Pharisees for their blatant hypocrisy, and he tells them that they are guilty of killing God's prophets, shedding the blood of the righteous from: "...Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple:" (Verse 51)

Abel's murder by his brother Cain takes place in Genesis 4. Zechariah gets murdered in chapter 24 of 2nd Chronicles. In the Hebrew Bible, the books are arranged from Genesis to 2nd Chronicles I believe, and so the record Jesus quoted ran from beginning to end of the Scriptures that had been preserved at that time. What I have read is that Jesus didn't include any of the murders that were written of in the Apocrypha in that statement. That fact gives even more authority to the canonical books. Of course, there are other reasons that one could write about, but these are some of the most meaningful to me.

There is an interconnectedness between the canonical books too that one can see by reading them. The technical term would probably be "self-authenticating." I have not read the Apocryphal books even to learn their historical value, nor do I desire to. I believe that is something I can look up anytime, if were necessary. I have read excerpts and found the parts I have read to be incompatible with the truth of the canonical books. I guess I just don't want the rest of it in my head. There's enough junk in there already.