The Apocrypha

THE APOCRYPHA.

While upholding the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to modern revelation, the writer has invariably been confronted with a quotation from the Revelations of the Apostle John, which states that if any man add to or take away from “the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” This has been considered sufficient to overthrow all the arguments put forth by the saints in favor of latter-day revelation, being even used by men who know better—who know that it is universally admitted that after John had written the book of Revelation he wrote the epistle that bears his name.

Great stress is laid by the unbelievers in modern revelation on verse 18 in the last chapter of Revelation, warning men against adding to the words of the prophecy of that book; while verse 19, which contains a warning against the taking away of any part of the same scriptures, is studiously avoided. The reason for this is obvious. Many, perhaps the majority, of those who do not be­lieve in the revelations which the Lord has given in these latter- days, know full well that there are scriptures mentioned in the Bible which are not found in that book. It was the taking away of many plain and inspired writings that caused the people to become so divided in their opinions respecting the doctrines of Christ, and that has produced much of the strife and contention and ill-feeling that are in the world at the present time. The Pro­phet Nephi, six hundred years before the coming of Christ, prophesied that many plain and precious parts would be taken away out of the book of the Lamb of God (the Bible), in consequence of which an exceeding great many would stumble and Satan would have power over them (I. Nephi 13).

Cobbett, in his “History of the Protestant Reformation,” has unwittingly testified to the fulfillment of this prophecy. In the 18th paragraph of the first chapter of his book he says:

“After the death of Christ, there was a long space of time before the gospel was put into anything like its present shape. It was preached in several countries, and churches were established in those countries, long before the written gospel was known much of, or, at least, long before it was made use of as a guide to the Christian churches. At the end of about four hundred years the written gospels were laid before a council of the Catholic Church, of which the Pope was the head. But, there were several gospels besides those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John! Several other of the apostles, or early disciples, had written gospels. All these, long after the death of the authors, were, as I have just said, laid before a council of the Catholic Church; and that council determined which of the gospels were genuine and which not. It retained the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; it determined that these four should be received and believed in, and that all the rest should be rejected.”

It will be observed that the historian says that the books which the Catholic church discarded were written by apostles or early disciples of Christ. One would naturally think that the early apostles would be as good, even better, authorities on Christian doctrine as the men who composed the council that rejected their writings. But the point I wish to bring out is this: I have never heard the Protestant churches rail against the Catholic church for rejecting these scriptures. The reason they have not done so is, I suppose, because they are in almost the same position; for while the Roman Catholic church has rejected a number of apostolic writings, the Protestants have left the Apocrypha out of their Bibles. If the Latter-day Saints will be condemned for accepting revelations which the Lord has given in recent times, what will be the fate of those who have discarded revelations which He gave in former dispensations? By quoting the Apostle John against the Latter-day Saints, the opponents of “Mormonism” catch them­selves in their own snares.

The following few historical facts concerning the Apocrypha may be helpful to some of the saints in their defense of the gospel as restored in these latter days. They are taken from two volumes on the Apocrypha, with an extensive introduction and copious notes, edited by Henry Wace, D.D.

The historical continuity supplied by the Apocrypha throws light on the interval between the time of the Prophet Malachi and the birth of Christ. The Council of Trent, in considering the ques­tion of the canon of Holy Scripture, put the Apocrypha (with the exception of the two books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses) on a par with the other books of the Bible. This decision, how­ever, was so much at variance with learned opinion that the framers of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, on the authority of M. Jerome, recommended the Apo­crypha to be read for example of life and instruction in manners, but not as doctrine.

The canon of the Jews did not contain the books known to us as the Apocrypha. The latter were included in the Greek collection of sacred books while the Jews adhered to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his account of the return of the Jews from captivity takes his information, not from the canonical book of Ezra, but from the First Book of Esdras in the Apocrypha, relating the story, peculiar to that book, of the contest between the three young men who were members of King Darius’ guard, giving also a letter bearing the name of Artaxerxes, found in the Apocryphal addition to the Book of Esther; and in his account of Judas Maccabeus he quotes the First Book of the Maccabees.

In the early translations of the Bible the Apocryphal books were mixed with the other books. In Luther’s German Bible they are placed as an appendix at the end of the Old Testament, with the title “Apocrypha,” meaning disputed books. A separation had pre­viously been made in an edition of the Septuagint, or Greek Bible, published at Masburg in 1526. Some of the early Christian Fathers quoted from the Apocrypha as follows: The epistle of Clement re­fers to Judith as a pattern of female heroism; the epistle of Barna­bas contains a saying of the son of Sirach; Clement’s second epistle contains an extract from the Book of Tobit; the same is also quoted by Polycarp; reference is made by Irenaeus to Bel and the Dragon, and Tertullian ascribes the Book of Wisdom to Solomon.

At the Council of Carthage, Africa, a.d. 397, a list of canonical scriptures was drawn up, which included the Apocrypha. A similar list was afterwards drawn up by the Council of Trent. Augustine and Jerome differed concerning these books, the former being in favor of the Apocrypha, while the latter stood out for the Hebrew version only.

The Church of England differs somewhat in theory and practice. The sixth article of religion rules the Apocrypha out for doctrine, and the thirty-fifth article recommends the Book of Homilies, in which the Apocryphal books are quoted as scripture. Lessons were appointed to be read from the Apocrypha on the week days during two months of the year, but in 1867 the time was reduced to three weeks. The American church uses this book on two or three holy days in the course of the year.

Without the Apocrypha the history of the Jewish nation would be almost a blank for the four hundred years from the close of the Old Testament to the birth of our Savior. What training the nation had received in order to fit it for the reception of the fur­ther revelation which our Lord was to communicate, people have not cared, to inquire. Yet the Apocrypha contains evidence that, in the times of which, it treats, the doctrine of a future life had taken hold of the people as it had not done before. It would not be possible to replace the two passages from the Book of Wisdom by two other Old Testament passages expressing belief in a future life with equal distinctness. The writers of the New Testa­ment were familiar with the Apocrypha, as notice parallel phrases in both books, for example: Christian armor, Eph. 6, and Wis­dom 5:18-20; The potter, Rom. 9:21, and Wisdom 15:7. Our Lord’s golden rule, “Whatsoever ye would, etc.,” appears in the negative form in Tobit 4:15.

The Latter-day Saints are in a position to state that the major por­tion of the Apocrypha is authentic, and contains much that is good and profitable. Concerning these disputed books the Lord gave the following revelation on the 9th day of March, 1833:

“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha, there are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated cor­rectly;

“There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are inter­polations by the hands of men.

“Verily, I say unto you, that it is pot needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

“Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth.

“And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit, shall obtain benefit therefrom;

“And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited, therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.”

George E. Jones.