The Apocrypha Fails Several Basic Requirements for Canonicity
The apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic religion fail in several basic requirements which they would be normally expected to meet if they were really inspired scripture.
Among the books of the Bible, one solid foundation upon which each rests for its place in the canon was the propheticity or apostolicity of the book. In other words, was it written by a person with the gift or office of a prophet (Old Testament), or an apostle or one accredited by an apostle (for the New Testament)?
While all of the 39 books of the Old Testament which are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants were considered as having the mark of propheticity on them, and thus were accepted into the Jewish canon, we've seen from above that the same cannot be said for the apocryphal books which the Catholic religion added to the Bible.
In the two Maccabees, we see statements which indicate specifically that the author(s) of these works DENIED inspiration to their writings (whether intentionally or not). In I Maccabees, we see three statements, given below:
"Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them." (I Maccabees 9:27)
"And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise." (I Maccabees 14:41)
In these three statements, I Maccabees backs up the generally held Jewish tradition (which was expounded, as seen earlier, by Josephus) that the prophets had ceased from the land of Israel long before the Maccabean period, in the time of Artaxerxes as Josephus says. Hence, I Maccabees denies to itself the important attribute of propheticity, in effect denying itself a strong claim to canonicity. By acknowledging that there were not prophets in the land, and hadn't been for some time, I Maccabees removes the foundation of propheticity from itself. This coupled with historical errors (seen below) resulted in its rejection by the Jews as canon.
Further, a telling statement is made in II Maccabees,
"...So I too will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end."
Does the Word of God depend on "the best that I could do"? Of course not. God's Word is perfect, and "the best that man can do" is not enough to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16) Further, we NEVER see God's Word issuing a caveat about being "poorly done and mediocre". As God is perfect, His inspiration is also perfect, and His Word is perfect (Psalm 19:7). Whereas the inspired prophets would say, "Thus saith the LORD", the author of II Maccabees asks us to accept his work as "the best that _I_ could do." He himself acknowledges that he was not inspired by God, and that his writing was not scripture. On this count alone, we ought to see that the claim of canonicity for II Maccabees demands to be rejected.
Further then, we should understand that if the testimony along this line from the Maccabees is to be taken seriously, then the other apocryphal books likewise fall from consideration as canon. I Maccabees states that the prophets had ceased to appear in Israel. The next prophet who is seen mentioned (as preparation for the Lord Jesus) is John the Baptist, whose prophetic ministry began (depending on whom you listen to) in 27-30 AD. Taking the testimony of Josephus and other Jewish writers into account, we see that in between the time of Artaxerxes and the ministry of John, is roughly 400 years of prophetic dead air. This period covers the various times at which the other apocryphal books were written. Further, this lapse in the inspirational gift was predicted by God's Word, in Amos 8:11-12,
Quite obviously this is referring to the inspirational gift of further revelation, as there never was a time when the word of the Lord, when viewed as the writings already given from God, had disappeared from Israel. The 400 year period of silence was the judgment of God upon Israel for their apostasy from Him, and it was during this period that the apocryphal books were written, thus they cannot be considered canon, since they weren't delivered by inspiration from God.
There are also several very grave errors in history presented in the apocryphal books. Probably the most obvious of these errors is found in the book of Judith. Herein, the army waging war against Israel is said to be the army of Nebuchadnezzar. Several problems present themselves with this claim. To begin, the army which is attacking Israel in this book is Assyrian, while Nebuchadnezzar, or course, was a Babylonian king. Further, Nebuchadnezzar didn't live for another century after this time period, he was far from being a contemporary of King Manasseh of Judah. Instead of presenting accurate or reliable history, Judith relates an erroneous history which might have resulted either from the confusion of the author of the book regarding the events of several centuries before (Judith was written around 150 BC), or else from a purposeful transposition designed to appeal to Jewish nationalism.
The Catholic Bible attempts to get around this difficulty, however. The Douay-Rheims version says in its note on Judith 1:5 (referring to "Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians"):
This attempt only deepens the pit, however. History records for us that Esarhaddon was succeeded in 668 BC by his son Ashurbanipal. Ashurbanipal did have a half-brother named Saosduchin, but this individual never reigned on the throne of Assyria. Further, Ashurbanipal was never known by the name Nebuchadnezzar, and the only other king to bear that name (besides Nebuchadnezzar II, who is the one depicted in the Bible), was Nebuchadnezzar I (1124-1103 BC), a ruler of the Fourth Dynasty of Babylon, several centuries before either the second Assyrian or the Neo-Babylonian empires which concern us here 87.
Other historical difficulties plague the Apocrypha. In the book of Tobit, the eponymous hero is reputed to have been a youth at the time of the secession of the ten northern tribes of Israel from Judah (Tobit 1:3-5). Yet, Tobit himself is then said to have been 158 years old when he died (Tobit 14:11). This book claims to have been written by Tobit at or around the time of the Assyrian captivity of the Northern Kingdom, which took place over 200 years after the division of Israel. Hence, we see a discrepancy of at least four decades, if not more. Also, we find the book of Tobit claiming that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon took Ninevah in battle. However, this is incorrect. The conqueror of Ninevah was Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, who took the city in 612 BC. 88
Historical inaccuracy is not the only problem which afflicts the apocryphal works. Even more destructive to the claims for their canonicity is the fact that the apocryphal books which Rome accepts have serious contradictions (both factual and doctrinal) between themselves and the true canon of Scripture. It is to be expected from scripture that, since the claim is divine authorship from God, that the scriptures will be internally consistent and free from self-contradiction. This is the case, despite multitudes of attempts by sceptics through the ages to prove otherwise, with the 66 books of the so-called Protestant canon. There is not one supposed difficulty in the consistency of the Bible which stands the test of close examination. If the Apocrypha is added in and considered to be scripture, however, then this glorious record is irreparably tarnished.
In the two books of Maccabees, we see two differing accounts of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In I Maccabees chapter 6, we see one version related of this king's death. According to this history, Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to seize the magnificently rich temple of a city in the Persian province of Elymais (Elam), but was repulsed with great shame. While retreating back towards Babylonia (the text records that he was "in Persia"), he received a messenger who informs him of the defeats which the Jews under Judas Maccabaeus had inflicted upon his subordinates in Judah. After hearing the news, Antiochus was struck with fear and "fell sick for grief" because his plans were all falling apart. He is said to have then repented of the evil which he did to the Jews in Judah, and died of grief and remorse upon his bed, calmly passing the crown to his son Antiochus V Eupator, with his trusted friend Philip as crown regent.
However, a differing record is seen in the parallel account given in II Maccabees. In chapter 9, we again see Antiochus attempting to loot the temple of Persepolis (the unnamed city in I Macc. 6), and being driven off in ignoble defeat. We then see that he is found at Ecbatana, a city high in the Zagros mountains of Persia (and, incidentally, not anywhere near the route from Elam back to Babylonia, a VERY long detour apparently). This is where he hears of the defeat of his armies in Judah, and he then flies off into a rage, vowing to revenge himself upon the Jews (v. 4). However, he is struck down by a terrible plague which consisted of a terrible pain in his bowels (v. 6), bruising over all his limbs (v. 7), and worms which actually swarmed out of his body and caused his flesh to begin falling off (v. 9). Further, he exuded such a stench that his entire army could hardly bear to be around him, much less carry his royal litter (v. 10). After enduring all of this, he then writes a letter of repentence to the Jews in Judah in which he tries to weasel his way out of the divine punishment, and ultimately dies in great pain upon his bed. His advisor, Philip, instead of bringing Antiochus V up to reign, is said to flee to Egypt seeking the protection of the Ptolemid king, out of fear of Antiochus' son Eupator.
We see that two differing accounts of the death of this tyrant are presented. One is in either Elam or southern Mesopotamia (south-southeast of Babylon), in which his death is relatively peaceful and the transition of power orderly. The other is in a city far to the northeast of Babylonia, where his death is violently disturbing and the transition of power to his son much less orderly. Hence, we see that there is a contradiction between these two books, and hence, an argument against the canonicity of at least one of them.
There are many doctrinal positions expounded upon in the apocryphal books which differ from what we see in the 66 books accepted by all of Christendom. For example, in Ecclesiasticus, it is taught that an entrance can be "bought" into heaven with money:
Here, this book pointedly says that giving alms, i.e. a good work, can give atonement for sin, i.e. that it can cover over and remove sin from us in the eyes of God. This same sort teaching is also presented in Tobit 12:9, where almsgiving is said to "deliver from death" and to "purge away every sin". This runs afoul of the testimony of the Word of God in numerous places, not the least of which is I Peter 1:18-19,
Or,
And also,
That good works of any sort cannot save, or even help to save, the souls of sinful man is repeated so often in the Bible that it is axiomatic (e.g. Titus 3:5, Galatians 2:16, Acts 13:39, Romans 4:5, James 2:23). However, by using an apocryphal book which contradicts true scripture, Rome tries to get around the plain teaching of the Word of God.
There is much more. You are welcome to read the entire article from that link if you are interested in a comprehensive explanation about the place of the Apocryphal books with Scripture. There appears to be quite a bit that has been hidden from you.
Thank you for posting that.