In his previous debate on the canon (link to debate), David "SoCal" Preston did what few folks who advocate for the Apocrypha are willing to do: he took the affirmative for his own position. In a previous post on this blog (link to post), I analyzed Preston's rebuttal arguments presented during that debate. However, as he was affirmative, he also offered what he viewed as a constructive case for his position.
I'm not here to nitpick every speak-o. I know that I make them myself in debates, and they do not go to the core of the substance. For example, Preston started his presentation by framing the question as "Is the Scripture Apocrypha," when he meant (of course) "Is the Apocrypha, Scripture?" While this was not Preston's first debate, this sort of transposition speak-o is totally normal due to nerves and the pressure of the situation. He restated the topic correctly two minutes later.
At a high level, Preston used the majority of his time doing other things besides making his affirmative case. Out of twenty minutes, there was some vague appeal to past practices (which lasted about two minutes), a more pointed appeal to historic acceptance of Tobit and Sirach (which again lasted about two minutes), and finally a section of alleged NT usage (which lasted about four minutes).
The breakdown of Preston's arguments is as follows:
- 10:00 to 12:00 Personal Background
- 12:00 to 19:15 Definitions of Apocrypha, Scripture, and Hagiographa
Here are a few points I noted in his comments:
- the "literal" definition of Apocrypha "is simply 'hidden or secret'" (~13:10) citing Colossians 2 and Ephesians 3:9
- definition of the Greek word that Preston says is equivalent to Apocrypha provided by "The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church," by W. H. Daubney (link to book, link to page).
- Summarizes as "what I want you to understand is: the word 'Apocrypha' in its literal sense means 'hidden'" (~15:05) and adds that this is how he is using the term in the debate
- defines Scriptures as "holy writings"
- asserts that the Jews third category of "writings" is "called hagiographa"
- argues that the "hagiographa" has less authority in Judaism
- cites Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (eds. John McClintock, James Strong)(cited material can be found here) entry on Hagiographa for the idea that the Hagiographa had a lower authority among the Jews and also for the idea that Hagiographa and Apocrypha were sometimes used interchangeably in the medieval period
Although couched as definitions, it did seem that Preston tried to springboard from these definitions to try to establish his case. That jump was to say that the Apocrypha are sometimes called Hagiographa, the Ketuvim portion of the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes called Hagiographa, the Ketuvim are sometimes held as having a lower authority in Judaism, with the implied (if not stated) conclusion being that the Apocrypha are part of this "lower authority but still inspired Scripture." It's not an argument that in any way logically follows, and he does not make the argument explicit, so it's hard to be too tough on Preston for this point.
- 20:00 to 22:00 Reformers, Councils, and Church Fathers
- Claims that they "talked out of both sides of their mouth"
- Claims Coverdale says that Judith is Scripture
- Claims King James says that Ecclesiasticus is part of the Old Testament
- Makes a sweeping and vague claim about fathers and councils and points people to William Heaford Daubney's book "the Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, and Gary Michuta's book, "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger," before mentioning his debate opponent's book
I assume Preston is being honest about his personal assessment of the evidence. The problem is that his assessment is far off. As mentioned in my previous post (link), the problem is that Preston's analysis is flawed. He seems to be stuck on the rigid idea that if the word "Scripture" or "Old Testament" is used by someone to describe a book of the apocrypha, they must mean by it the same thing that he means by it. So, the result is that he thinks that various authors are contradicting themselves. In some cases, this is simply because he has a wrong understanding of what the authors mean by "Scripture." In other cases, the problem is bigger. For example, in the other post, we covered how the Coverdale claim is not supported by the evidence.
- 22:00 to 24:15 Preston argues that Tobit and Sirach:
- were used as Scripture by Jews,
- were found in the Dead Sea caves,
- accepted by fathers,
- accepted by councils, and
- present in the LXX.
Here, at least, Preston offers some claims that should be evaluated. The biggest problems with Preston's claims are that "used as Scripture by Jews" is not identical to being part of the canon of Scripture of Palestine orthodox Jews in the first half of the first century. That's something Preston doesn't and can't establish.
Fragments of Sirach and Tobit were found in the Dead Sea caves. Of course, Enoch, Book of Giants, the Temple Scroll and multiple fragments of the Book of Jubilees were found there as well. At least one Greek fragment of the Epistle of (Ps.)- Jeremy was found as well. Not all of the materials found in the caves has been dated.
Acceptance by the fathers is also a mixed bag as well. Certainly not all the fathers accepted Sirach and Tobit as being inspired Scripture in the sense we mean today. Likewise, not all the church councils included them.
The canon of the LXX is not easy to unwind. As late as the fourth century, we have multiple authors saying that Sirach and Tobit were not included in the LXX.
- 24:15 to 45 shuffling with slides
- 24:45 to 26:00 Metonyms Explained
- 26:00 to 30:30 Example(s) of NT usage
This section seemed to be the place where Preston had the most potential to prove his case.
A. Sirach
A1. Ephesians 5:14-15
Ephesians 5:14-15 (KJV) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
Cf. Sirach 13:13
Sirach 13:13 (KJV) Observe, and take good heed, for thou walkest in peril of thy overthrowing: when thou hearest these things, awake in thy sleep.
John Gill offers: "some think the apostle refers to Isaiah 9:2; others to Isaiah 26:19; others to Isaiah 60:1; some are of opinion the words are cited out of an apocryphal book of Jeremy, or from some writing now lost."
For reference:
Isaiah 9:2 (KJV) The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Isaiah 26:19 (KJV) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
Isaiah 60:1 (KJV) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
Isaiah 60:1 seems to be the most common link, from other commentators. Of course, it's not necessary to assume that Ephesians 5 is citing anything prior.
Pros and Cons to Preston's Position:
There are the thematic elements of "walking and awaking" close together in the text Preston uses. However, the more dominant theme of illumination (present in Isaiah 60:1 and Isaiah 9:2) is missing from the text Preston cites
Perhaps a more significant problem for Preston is that the "arise" part of Sirach 13:13 does not seem to be original.
Sirach 13:13 (RSV) Keep words to yourself and be very watchful, for you are walking about with your own downfall.[c]
[c: Other authorities add When you hear these things in your sleep, wake up! 14 During all your life love the Lord, and call on him for your salvation.]
In fact, the CEB, DRA, GNT, NABRE, NCB, and RSV/NRSV varieties all do not include the additional material about waking. (see here)
The NETS version (available here) brackets the "wake up" portion and incorporates it with the other bracketed material of vs. 14. At p. 715-16, the reader's introduction of the NETS Sirach section explains:
For Sirach, I have used the Göttingen edition of Joseph Ziegler (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965]). In his critical text, Ziegler places verses from a later Greek recension (GKII; see below) in smaller typeface, and I have followed his judgments as to what constitutes GKII. ...
One additional matter that both the NETS translation of Ben Sira and the NRSV had to deal with was the presence of the later Greek recension. In the process of the textual transmission of the Greek, a number of proverbs were added to the book, and this recension is usually designated GKII. For the most part, the NRSV puts readings from this Greek recension in footnotes leaving in the main text only GKI (= OG), that is, the translation of the author’s grandson, who rendered the Hebrew text into Greek. In the NETS translation, I have worked in analogous fashion both to Ziegler and to how NETS has handled similar cases elsewhere. GKII passages appear in the running text where they should be located. I have set them off by (a) marking them with square brackets at the beginning and end of each line and (b) by placing them in italics.
So, no, this is not a quotation or allusion by Jesus to Sirach.
A2. Ephesians 5:16
Ephesians 5:16 (KJV) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Cf. Sirach 4:20
Sirach 4:20 (KJV) Observe the opportunity, and beware of evil; and be not ashamed when it concerneth thy soul.
There's not much to say about this one. It just seems to have some vague similarity. Hardly worthy of a rebuttal.
A3. Ephesians 5:33
Ephesians 5:33 (KJV) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Cf. Sirach 26:24
Sirach 26:24 (KJV) A dishonest woman contemneth shame: but an honest woman will reverence her husband.
There is a similar idea of a woman reverencing her husband in Ephesians 5:33 and the text Preston cites. However, once again, this text does not seem to be original. Verses 19-27 are omitted by the RSV. (see note here) Moreover, among the versions that provide a translation of the text, the correct translation seems to be about a daughter's modesty (see the examples here), which moves the text farther from being parallel to Ephesians 5:33. The NETS version, mentioned above, similarly brackets vss. 19-27, but translates the text as "A shameless woman will exhaust dishonor, but a decorous daughter will revere even her husband." This is slightly closer to the KJV of Ephesians 5:33. However, since this is a later recension to Sirach, it should be of no concern to us, as it cannot be something Paul was citing.
(slide with references)
B. Wisdom
B1. James 4:5
James 4:5 (KJV) Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
Cf. Wisdom 1:4-5
Wisdom 1:4-5 (KJV) For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.
Cf. Wisdom 6:23
Wisdom 6:23 (KJV) Neither will I go with consuming envy; for such a man shall have no fellowship with wisdom.
John Gill states:
Some think that the apostle refers to a particular passage of Scripture in the Old Testament, and that he took it from Genesis 6:5 as some; or from Exodus 20:5, as others; or from Deuteronomy 7:2 or from Job 5:7 or from Proverbs 21:10 others think he had in view some text in the New Testament; either Romans 12:2 or Galatians 5:17 and some have imagined that he refers to a passage in the apocryphal book: "For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin." (Wisdom 1:4) and others have been of opinion that it is taken out of some book of Scripture then extant, but now lost, which by no means can be allowed of: the generality of interpreters, who suppose a particular text of Scripture is referred to, fetch it from Numbers 11:29 but it seems best of all to conclude that the apostle has no regard to any one particular passage of Scripture, in which the following words are expressly had, since no such passage appears; but that his meaning is, the sense of the Scripture everywhere, where it speaks of this matter, is to this purpose:
The two cited passages cited Preston seem to suggest that sin (especially envy) is antithetical to wisdom. By contrast, the Scripture being cited is one that talks about the spirit of man.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.
Pro 21:10 The soul of the wicked desireth evil: his neighbour findeth no favour in his eyes.
Num 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
For a few seconds (starting at 28:38), Preston offered the following slide:
This slide provides a list of phrases from Sirach and phrases from the New Testament (especially James) that Preston thinks are similar. He didn't go through them in detail.
There were some obvious (and some less obvious) typographic errors in the chart. The cited phrases from the NETS | KJV are (I think, and sometimes with more context added by me):
Sirach 15:6 "Gladness and a garland of rejoicing" | James 1:12 "crown of life" (Cf. Rev. 2:10)
Sirach 1:28 "double heart" | James 1:8 and 4:8 "double minded"
Sirach 4:26 "do not be ashamed to acknowledge your sins" | James 5:16 "confess your faults"
Sir. 20:3 "and he who admits freely will be kept from disparagement" | James 5:16 "confess your faults"
Sir. 43:26 "by his word all things hold together" | Colossians 1:17 "by him all things consist"
Sir. 51:30 "Accomplish your work" | James 1:25 "doer of the work"
Sir. 14:1 "pain of sins" | James 5:20 "multitude of sins" (Cf. 1 Peter 4:8 and Jeremiah 30:14)
Sir. 18:21 "before you fall ill, humble yourself" | James 4:10 "humble yourselves" (cf. 1 Peter 5:6 and Jeremiah 13:18)
Sir. 15:12 "Do not say, 'it was he who led me astray'" | James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God"
Sir. 20:15 "reproach" | James 1:5 "upbraideth not"
Sir. 11:1 "A humble person's wisdom ..." | James 1:9 "brother of low degree" (Cf. Luke 1:52 and Psalm 62:9)
Sir. 43:3 "burning heat" | James 1:11 "burning heat"
Sir. 34:2 "grasps a shadow" | James 1:17 "shadow of turning"
Sir. 5:11 "quick in your hearing" | James 1:19 "swift to hear"
Sir. 11:4 "the putting-on of clothes" | James 2:2 "goodly apparel ... vile raiment"
Sir. 19:3 "decay and worms" | James 5:2 "motheaten"
Some of these parallels are not particularly close at all. Others at least have a similar expression conveying a similar thought. Preston didn't go through the slide in detail, which is probably for the best, since it is not especially impressive.
B2. James 1:5
James 1:5 (KJV) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Cf. Wisdom 7:13
Wisdom 7:13 (KJV) I learned diligently, and do communicate her liberally: I do not hide her riches.
This was based on the word "liberally." The big problem, of course, is that the one communicating wisdom (if that's what's being communicated) is someone learned it. There are plenty of canonical Scriptures that say that God gives wisdom.
During Cross-Examination, Preston brought up additional texts.
C. 2 Esdras
C1. Luke 11:49
Luke 11:49 (KJV) Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Cf. 2 Esdras 1:32
2 Esdras 1:32 (KJV) I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.
2 Esdras seems to be retrospective, whereas Luke is prospective. This makes sense if, as is usually believed, 2 Esdras was written after Luke. However, it makes much less sense the other way around.
C2. Matthew 23:37-38
Matthew 23:37-38 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Cf. 2 Esdras 1:30 and 33
2 Esdras 1:30 (KJV) I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.
2 Esdras 1:33 (KJV) Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.
This should probably be combined with the preceding one, as they are part of a similar thought. I think it's reasonable to find literary dependency here. On the other hand, 2 Esdras seems to say that God actually did do the gathering - there is no mention of the "ye would not" that is present in Jesus' speech.
2 Esdras 1:30-33 reminds me of another apocryphal work, which likewise adopts the famous expression from Jesus' mouth for its own purpose.
3 Nephi 10:5-6:
5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.
6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.
Of course, 3 Nephi was composed in the 1800s, so it is simply literary dependency on the New Testament, which was accessible to its author, much as the gospels were accessible to the author of 2 Esdras.
C3. Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:16 (KJV) So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Cf. 2 Esdras 8:3
2 Esdras 8:3 (KJV) There be many created, but few shall be saved.
There is some thematic similarity here, as to the number of saved being "few."
Conclusion
My own conclusion from the above is that Preston offered precious little to go on in terms of an actual constructive case for his canonical view. For the bulk of the Apocryphal books and parts in the KJV, Preston offered no substantial argument at all. For Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and 2 Esdras, Preston offered a relatively weak case. On the other hand, Preston was tackling a challenge that few from his side are willing to attempt: making a positive case for the Apocrypha. In that, we can laud his attempt. However, I cannot agree with his time allocation nor do I find any real strength in his arguments.
