Every once and a while the claim is made that some church council purged books from the Bible. Some in the New Age Movement claim that books which taught reincarnation were eliminated (a claim that immediately breaks down when one realizes that the Bible had always contained the clearest possible teaching against reincarnation-Hebrews 9:27). Hence, to say that the Bible originally taught reincarnation, is to claim that the Bible originally contradicted itself.

I. The Bible Has Nothing To Hide:

The Bible itself mentions various books, that did not end up in the collection of books which were viewed as inspired of God. Numbers 21:14 'The Book of the Wars of the Lord'. Joshua 10:13 'Is it not written in the book of Jashar?'; 2 Samuel 1:18; 1 Kings 11:41 'in the book of the acts of Solomon'; 2 Chronicles 12:15 'the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer.' Willis J. Beecher lists 25 extracanonical books mentioned in Chronicles alone in his article on "Chronicles" (ISBE. Rev. ed., Volume 1, p. 630) 1 Corinthians 5:9 'I wrote you in my letter'-indicating that Paul had corresponded with the Corinthians before the First Corinthian letter.

Points To Note:

A. Just because the Bible mentions a book or even quotes from it, doesn't mean that God intended it to be in the Bible. The Bible itself points out that some of it's events are recorded in secular sources. (Esther 10:2 '..and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai..are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia?' Which was the official diary and record of the Persian court (2:23; 6:1). The Biblical writers also quoted secular authors: (Acts 17:28 '..as even some of your own poets have said..'-the precise expression is found in the writings of Aratus (270 B.C.); Titus 1:13 'One of themselves, a prophet of their own said...This testimony is true.') It is understood that when Paul quotes from these heathen poets that he isn't endorsing everything in their writings.

B. The Power of God: I like what Jim McGuiggan said about the supposed "lost" letter to the Corinthians. 'Paul mentions a letter to the Corinthians we don't have. We don't have it because we don't need it. It isn't "lost". "Lost" gives the impression we were supposed to have it and can't because it's "lost". The God who graciously preserved for us the 66 books we have could have preserved more had it been his will. He didn't, therefore he decided not to. There are other books alluded to in the Scriptures but there are no "lost" books.' (First Corinthians, Jim McGuiggan, p. 64) Those who argue that books were lost, must make the following argument. "God was only able to preserve 66 books, not..67,68,69..etc.." Now does that make sense? (Genesis 18:14 'Is anything too difficult for the Lord?'; Luke 1:37). God can create the universe out of nothing (Psalm 33:6), but God can't keep more than 66 books in print?

II. Jesus And The Old Testament:

If any books had been deleted from the collection of Scripture that the Jews possessed, the coming of Jesus Christ into the world provided an excellent opportunity for God to set the record straight. And yet Jesus never condemned or rebuked the Jews for not having the right number of books in their Old Testament. Further, Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament: Genesis-Matthew 19:4-5; Exodus-Matthew 22:32; Leviticus-Matt. 5:43; Deut.-Matt. 4:4; Hosea-Matt. 9:13; Micah-Matt. 10:35; Malachi-Matt. 11:10; 1 Samuel-Matt. 12:3; Jonah-Matt. 12:40; 1 Kings-Matt. 12:42; Isaiah-Matt. 13:14; Psalms-Matt. 21:16; Daniel-Matt. 24:15; Zechariah-Matt. 26:31, and many more could be added.

'He considered every section, "Law and Prophets" and "Law, Prophets, and Psalms" (Luke 24:27,44), to be prophetic of Him. He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles (Matthew 23:35; tantamount to saying "Genesis to Malachi", seeing that the Hebrews placed Chronciles at the end of their O.T., instead of Malachi). This indicates that Jesus considered the O.T. complete and finished after Malachi wrote. He personally authenticated persons and events from Eden (Matthew 19:5) Jonah in the "whale" (Matt. 12:40), including Daniel the prophet (24:15), Noah and the flood (Luke 17:27), and the destruction of Sodom (Luke 17:29)...Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon (inspired books of the Jews)..but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the "word of God". Illustrative of this point are Jesus' references to the Old Testament as the "word of God" (Mark 7:13), as that which "God said" (Matthew 19:5), or as that which was uttered "by the Spirit" (Matthew 22:43).' (A General Introduction To The Bible. Geisler/Nix p. 134) In addition, someone has pointed out that most of the controversial passages in the O.T. are referred to by Jesus Himself or the Apostles, for example, the creation, fall, flood, miracles of Moses (crossing the Red Sea-1 Cor. 10:1-2), and Elijah, and Jonah in the great fish. Which has moved one writer to conclude, "If these major miraculous events are authentic, there is no difficulty in accepting the rest of the events of the Old Testament." (Geisler/Nix p. 86) In all this "commentary" upon the Old Testament, Jesus never once mentions or quotes from a book that we don't possess. Geisler notes, 'For both the Old and New Testaments there are certain books that were accepted by everyone, some books that were later disputed, and some that were rejected by all. There is no category of books initially accepted and later thrown out.' (When Skeptics Ask, p. 154)

III. Pseudepigrapha:

This is the name given to a number of false writings, written between the period of 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. These are books that were rejected by virtually everyone. Again, we need to note, they were never "lost", both Jews and Christians knew about the existence of these books.

IV. Apocrypha:

This name applies to a group of books, mainly written during the intertestamental period.

I ESDRAS: (about 150 B.C.)-draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. Adds much legendary material. 2 ESDRAS: (100 A.D.), contains seven visions.

TOBIT: (2nd cent. B.C.)-emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 B.C.) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 B.C. -time span=209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (14:11; cf. 1:3-5).

JUDITH: (middle 2nd cent. B.C.) Contains subbiblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (9:10,13); and historical error-Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." (Geisler/Nix).

ADDITIONS TO ESTHER: (about 100 B.C.) The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.

THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON: (about A.D. 40)

ECCLESIASTICUS: Or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180 B.C.) Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.

BARUCH: (about A.D. 100) Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.

BEL AND THE DRAGON: A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.

SONG OF THE THREE HEBREW CHILDREN: Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.

THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH: Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.

FIRST MACCABEES: (1st cent. B.C.) Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.

SECOND MACCABEES: Which is not a sequel, but a parallel account, treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead. (12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Heb. 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).

V. Concluding Observations:

A. THE JEWS DIDN'T EVEN ACCEPT THESE BOOKS:

Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the O.T. extensively, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. Josephus (A.D. 30-100), the Jewish historian, excludes the Apocrypha in numbering the books of the O.T. The Babylonian Talmud says, "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." (Tractate "Sanhedrin" VII-VIII, 24) In Jewish circles these "outside books" were known as "writings which do not defile the hands", i.e. were not considered as "holy". One writer said, "Interestingly enough, the apocryphal writings of Judaism survived more as the result of the activities of Christians than through any serious interest on the part of the Jews." (Zondervan Pictorial Ency. "Apocrypha", p. 205)

B. NONE OF THE BOOKS CLAIM INSPIRATION:

Unlike many of the books in the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:37; Gal. 1:11-12; Eph. 3:3-5; in fact Paul even warns the Thessalonians concerning "false letters" (2 Thess. 2:2); 2:15; 3:14); there is no claim within the Apocrypha that it is the Word of God.

C. WHEN "SOME" WHERE ACCEPTED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:

'The Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemical (argumentative) action against Protestantism. Furthermore, the addition of books that support "salvation by works" and "prayers for the dead" at this time, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses, is highly suspect.' (Geisler/Nix, p. 172) 'It had been quoted against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position (e.g. 2 Macc. 12:45-46, which favors prayers for the dead), and then added a few years later in a counter-Reformation attempt to refute Luther.' (p. 176) In addition, we need to note that the Roman Catholic Church didn't accept "all" of the Apocrypha. Only 12 of the 15 books were accepted, and at least one of these omitted books (2 Esdras) is AGAINST prayers for the dead (cf. 7:105). Now the above presents an interesting dilemma for the advocates of the idea that: " The Catholic Church edited and removed books from the Bible". If that is true, then why do Catholic Bibles have more books in them than other translations? How can the charge of "removing books from the Bible" be seriously entertained when the facts are that Bibles used in the Catholic Church contain more books and not less books than Bibles used in non-Catholic churches? As we close one writer reminds us, that while the Apocrypha isn't Scripture, that doesn't mean that it possesses no value. It provides a most valuable source of information about the history and religion of the Jewish nation in the period between both testaments.