Should we give any significance to the Apocrypha? What do these "hidden" scriptures prove?

Question

How to live a holy life? How to worship Jesus? How does the revelation of the Apocrypha writings *change* what I do now as a Christian living for God?

How can I be sure these writings are truly inspired by God?

Answer 1

The disputed books
The “Apocrypha” is a collection of documents, generally produced between the 2nd century B.C. and the 1st century A.D., which were not a part of the original Old Testament canon. The names of these books are: I Esdras, II Esdras, The Rest of Esther, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees. The last seven of these are incorporated into Roman Catholic editions of the Bible. The Catholic Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the canonicity of these books, as found in the Latin Vulgate, and condemned those who reject them.

The title, “Apocrypha,” is a transliterated form of the term apokruphos, meaning “hidden.” A plural form of the word is used in Colossians 2:3, where Paul declares that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are “hidden” in Christ. The adjective “apocryphal” has come to be applied to those books that do not bear the marks of divine inspiration. There are several reasons why the Apocrypha is to be rejected as part of the Bible.

General Principles
1. There is abundant evidence that none of these books was ever received into the canon (that which conforms to “rule”) of the Hebrew Old Testament. Though they appear in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament - known as LXX), that is not necessarily a reliable criterion. Professor G.T. Manley notes: “[These books] do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX [3rd/2nd centuries B.C.], but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate...” (The New Bible Handbook, Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1962, p. 39).

2. The apocryphal books are not in those most ancient works which allude to the Old Testament Scriptures. For example:

(a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C. - A.D. 50), wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never cited the Apocrypha, nor did he even mention these documents.

(b) Josephus (A.D. 37-95) rejected them. He wrote: “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...” (Against Apion 1.8). By combining several Old Testament narratives into a “book,” the thirty-nine of our current editions become the twenty-two alluded to by Josephus.

(c) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

(d) In the early 3rd century A.D., neither Origin nor his contemporary, Tertullian, recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical.

(e) Though some of the apocryphal books were being used in the church services by the 5th century A.D., they were read only by those who held inferior offices in the church (see: T.H. Horne, Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, Philadelphia: Whetham & Son, 1841, Vol. I, p. 436).

3. The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were been given by God. Malachi concludes his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.” He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come...” (Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17). The implication of Malachi’s prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John. This excludes the apocryphal writings.

Josephus confirms this when he declares: “It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.”

He further says that no one “has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them . . .” (Against Apion 1.8). F.F. Bruce contended that there “is no evidence that these books were ever regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether inside or outside Palestine, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek” (The Books and the Parchments, London: Pickering & Inglis, 1950, p. 157).

4. Jesus Christ and His inspired New Testament penmen quoted from, or alluded to, the writings and events of the Old Testament profusely. In fact, some 1,000 quotations or allusions from thirty-five of the thirty-nine Old Testament books are found in the New Testament record. And yet, significantly, not once is any of these apocryphal books quoted or even explicitly referred to by the Lord, or by any New Testament writer. Noted scholar Emile Schurer argued that this is really remarkable since most of the New Testament habitually quoted from the LXX (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1894, Vol. I, 99).

“Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books . . . . The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly, but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as authority” (Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 101).

5. Finally, it must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God. Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying.” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: “Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases” (The Apocrypha, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1894).

6. Too, there is the matter of literary style. Dr. Raymond Surburg has written: “When a comparison is instituted of the style of the Apocrypha with the style of the Biblical Hebrew Old Testament writings, there is a considerable inferiority, shown by the stiffness, lack of originality and artificiality of expression characterizing the apocryphal books” (The Christian News, November 24, 1980, p. 7).

Evidence negating inspiration The Apocrypha contains a great variety of historical, geographical, chronological, and moral errors. Professor William Green of Princeton wrote: “The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes...” (General Introduction to the Old Testament, New York: Scribner’s & Sons, 1899, p. 195). A critical study of the Apocrypha’s contents clearly reveals that it could not be the product of the Spirit of God.

The following examples are ample evidence of this:

1. Rather that the creation being spoken into existence from nothing by the word of Almighty God, as affirmed in the Scriptures (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3), the Apocrypha has God creating the world out of “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).

2. According to the prophet Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month, or the nineteenth year of his reign (Jer. 52:12-13). Subsequent to this, both the prophet and his scribe, Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7). According to the Apocrypha, however, at this very time Baruch was in Babylon (Baruch 1:1-2).

3. There are two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was “taken with a noisome sickness” and so “ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (II Maccabees 9:19-29).

4. Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.)óa span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5)!

5. The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. “Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).

The foregoing was a common belief among heathen peoples, but certainly it is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13- 16; Zech. 12:1).

6. The Apocrypha teaches that prayer may be made for the dead. “Wherefore he made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sins” (II Maccabees 12:45). Roman Catholics cite this passage to find support for their dogma of praying for the dead to be released from purgatory (obviously there’s no New Testament passage to buttress the notion), but the effort is vain.

7. The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” (Tobit 3:9).

8. The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples:

(a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword, choosing “rather to die nobly” than to fall into the hands of his enemy. He was not mortally wounded, however, and so threw himself down from a wall and “manfully” died among the crowds (14:41- 43).

(b) It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1- 17).

(c) The murder of the men of Shechem (Gen. 34), an act of violence which is condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6- 7), is commended and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9).

These, along with various other considerations, lead only to the conclusion that the Apocrypha cannot be included in the volume of sacred Scripture.

Reasons For Rejecting The Apocrypha From The Canon

# The books were never included in the Hebrew canon.
# Josephus expressly excludes them.
# Philo, the Jewish philosopher in Alexandria (ca. 20 BC – AD 40) quoted the O.T. Scriptures very frequently, yet never quoted the Apocrypha nor even mentioned these books.
# Targums (Aramaic paraphrases) were provided for the canonical books but were not provided for the Apocrypha.
# These books are never quoted in the New Testament
# Most of the Apocrypha material existed and was likely incorporated in Septuagint editions in the New Testament period, yet it is never cited by Jesus or the apostles. The oldest copies of the Septuagint now in existence date from the fourth century AD, plenty of time for them to have been incorporated in later editions.
# NT references rather allude to the commonly accepted Hebrew canon.
# Christian tradition offers no real support for accepting the Apocrypha as canonical.
# These books are not included in the canonical lists of the early centuries.
# Jerome expressly supported the strict Hebrew canon and emphatically rejected the Apocrypha as secondary.
# Books of the Apocrypha were considered suitable for reading and instruction but they were not considered authoritative in the early centuries.
# The Apocrypha bears no internal marks of inspiration.
# No Apocrypha writer actually claims inspiration; indeed, some disclaim it.
# These books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
# Doctrinally, the books at times contradict the canonical Scriptures.
# Stylistically, the books are inferior to the canonical Scriptures.
# Stories in the Apocrypha contain some legendary and fantastic materials.
# The moral and spiritual level is beneath that of the canonical Scriptures.
# Proper dating of the Apocrypha shows its non-canonical character.
# These books were written later than those of the Old Testament.
# Portions of these books even date from the Christian era.

The Apocrypha was first declared canonical by the reactionary Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1546). This conciliar decision was transparently dogmatic. This action was passed by a narrow majority.

The Apocrypha is rejected from the canon of Scripture for numerous reasons.

Besides the fact that Jesus and the apostles never once quoted from it; and aside from its obvious lack of inspiration (it "just doesn't sound like" scripture; "My sheep hear My voice," John 10; etc.) – there are many solid reasons for rejecting its contents from being included with the canonical scriptures. [Much of the following material comes from Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 125.]

A. The Apocrypha contains chronological errors and statements contrary to history.

# Baruch 1:2 (comp. Jeremiah 43:6-7)
# Bel and the Dragon 22 (Xerxes did it); Bel and the Dragon 33
# Tobit 1:4 (Tobit is said to live in Nineveh in 722 BC, and yet he also saw the division of the united kingdom in 931 BC. [1 Kings 12:19-20])
# Esther 11:2-4 (the dates of Mordecai's captivity [597 BC] and dream [485/484 BC] would make him 112 years old)
# 1 Esdras 5:56 has the second year of Cyrus rather than the second year of Darius; in 5:73 Cyrus (c. 530 BC) died more than two years before the reign of Darius (c. 522/521- 486 BC.)
# Tobit 1:15 "But when Shalmaneser died, and his son Sennacherib reigned in his place," Shalmanezer died before the fall of Samaria, and Sennacherib was Sargon's son.
# Tobit 14:15 " Before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, and he saw its prisoners being led into Media, those whom King Cyaxares of Media had taken captive." Nineveh's conquerors were Naboplazzar and Cyaxares (612 B.C.).
# Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC) ruled over Babylon after Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BC.
# Judith 2:1 Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians, and Holofernes [v.4] may be from a much later time.
# Judith 4:3-4 and 5:19 Nebuchadnezzar sent the Jews into exile, and they returned under Cyrus (538 BC).
# Bel and the Dragon 33 Habakkuk wrote before 612 BC [Hab. 1:6], making unlikely a visit to Daniel almost 75 years later (539 BC).

B. It contains geographical errors.

# Tobit 1:4; 6:1; 9:2 (This was an 11 day journey from Ecbatana to Rages but made to seem shorter.) The Tigris River is west of Nineveh; Persia is east.
# Judith 1:6 Hydaspes, a river in India, is erroneously placed in Mesopotamia.
# Judith 2:21 The 300 miles separating Nineveh and Bectileth makes a 3-day march impossible.
# Judith 2:24 The normal route is south from Cilicia to Damascus, not following the Euphrates River.
# 1 Maccabees 9:2 says "Gilgal" when it should have said "Galilee" (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12:11.1, sections 420-421)

C. Mistakes

# Baruch 6:1-3 (Epistle of Jeremiah) 70 years called seven generations
# 2 Esdras 6:42 says that God in creation gathered the waters to a seventh part of the earth, whereas in fact water covers 70% of the earth's surface.
# 2 Esdras 3:1 has Ezra in Babylon 30 years after the fall of Jerusalem, whereas Ezra lived a century later.
# 2 Maccabees 1:19 Persia should be Babylon (2 Kings 24:14)

D. Many false teachings are represented, and evil practices that the inspired Word of God condemns are condoned.

# Prayers for the dead. 2 Maccabees 12:40-45. A post-death visit by Jeremiah in 15:14.
# Salvation by good works (almsgiving, etc.). Sirach 3:3, 14-15 (kindness to parents atones for sin)
Sirach 3:30 (almsgiving atones for sins) 30:11-12 2; Esdras 7:7; 8:33, 36; Tobit 12:9, 8a; 14:11
# The use of magic.
# In demon exorcism. Tobit 6-8
# In healing. Tobit 11
# "Good luck" (fortune). Sirach 8:19
# The intercession of angels. Tobit 12:15 (Raphael)
# Suicide. 2 Maccabees 14:4146
# Mourning for the dead. Sirach 38:16-23 (especially verses 20-21)
# Sinless lives of Old Testament personalities. Prayer of Manasseh 8
# 2 Esdras 6:55 The Bible never says the world was created for Israel
# 2 Esdras 8:4-5 possibly suggests the preexistence of souls

E. Contradictions

# 1 Maccabees 4:26-35 contradicts 2 Macc. 10:37-11:12, which puts Lysia's defeat after the death of Timothy.
# 1 Maccabees 4:30-35 contradicts 2 Macc. 11:6-15, which says it was a negotiated peace.
# 1 Maccabees 6:8-9 contradicts 2 Macc. 9:5- 12, which says that the king was struck with a repulsive physical disease.
# 2 Maccabees 8:9 contradicts 1 Macc. 3:38- 4:25, which says that Gorgias, not Nicanor, was leader.
# 2 Maccabees 8:13 contradicts 1 Macc. 3:56, which cites other reasons for the troop reduction.
# 2 Maccabees 10:3 contradicts 1:19-2:1 on how altar fire was restarted and contradicts 1:54 and 4:52, which say 3 years instead of 2.
# 2 Maccabees 10:37 contradicts 12:2, 18-25, where Timothy reappears (cf. 1 Macc. 5:11- 40).
# 2 Maccabees 11:13-15 contradicts 1 Macc. 4:35, which says that no peace was made.
# 2 Maccabees 13:16 contradicts 1 Macc. 6:47, which says the Jews fled.

F. Some of the miracles and events described are simply fabulous and silly.

Tobit 6:2-7, 16-17, etc. (placing incense smoke on the organs of a man eating fish to ward off evil spirits; the demon was in love with the woman and had killed her last seven husbands on their wedding night)

G. Only three divisions of the Old Testament are described in Luke 24:44.

Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 also witness the arrangement and compass of the Old Testament – not allowing for any books outside the time from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. The books of the Apocrypha form no part of the canon, but rather serve as witnesses to life and thought in the intertestamental period.

Answer 2

Do you think, just because Constantine and his ilk agreed that only these get to be put in the Holy Book, that these are the only words spoken that were inspired? Any books found later, are they not to be included in the scripts as well? What made these Holy, and not others? The OT spoke of the books of Jasher also. Are these not worthy as well?
The Apocrypha has a lot of words. Laboring to read it may make your mind tired of reading for a while. They are interesting though. May be true. Not reading them, you won't miss too much out of life.

Who knows. If they fall in line with the main body of Scripture, you might just keep them in mind.

Then there are the Dead Sea Scrolls. What about them?

Peter and Paul argued a lot, and they finally went their own ways. To each his own. You can't take the Bible with you when you go. Ultimately, it is you that you have to answer to on the day of reckoning. The teachings of "Jesus" are all you really need. Everything else are the flowers. Anything is good that helps you to understand God and his ways better. Helping you to be a better person. Always keep an open mind about things, but not so much as to have you brains fall out. Keep it sensible. You will know intuitively. Unsureness is not a good thing. Walk confidently and God will provide the answers.

Answer 3

The reason these writings aren't part of the canon of scripture is because they are out of step with everything else. Some of them teach that Christ was a good teacher but not the Son of God. Some teach that he was married and has his offspring among us to this very day. Some teach that He didn't die on the cross at all that there is no sacrifice for sin.. They often contradict each other in their teachings. In the canon we have the message of the life of our Lord. We have His teaching and direction from the Holy Spirit through His Apostles teaching us how to live a life for His glory. Why worry about fringe teachings when we have the heart of God's word right there in our hands? Jim

Answer 4

The bible is the book that we use to prove if others speak the truth. The bible is the inspired word of God. For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 The bible is a life time of study anyway. We really do not need any other books. I always ask the holy spirit to guide me when I read the bible. the more you read other books the longer you are spending time away from the bible.
God Bless
http://www.needanewstart.com

Answer 5

You can't. The "Apocrypha" refers to, for the most part, books that were found in the Septuagint (a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament) but not in the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

No one knows who wrote these books, or whether or not they are divinely inspired, so the Protestant versions of the Bible usually omits them.

Answer 6

The Bible is a large book, and if the Lord Jesus were part of a Trinity, it would be explained. A least one chapter out of the Bible would be used for explaining it if necessary for salvation. Instead, Jesus refers to the Father as his God- John 20:17, Revelation Chapter 3. Remember that "truth came to be through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him". John 1:18

Answer 7

There's nothing hidden about the Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books. You can find them in any Catholic Bible. They were accepted as part of the Bible at the canonical councils of the early Christian church. King James did away with them in 1611 when he completed his translation of the Bible. All Protestant Bibles use the KJV as their broad template, so you won't find the Deuterocanonicals in any Protestant Bible. They are alive and well in Catholic theology, however.

Answer 8

No. These writings are not scripture, and never have been. The catholic church added them officially to their version of their Bible at the council of Trent around 1650 (or there about).

Answer 9

Assuming you are working within the Christian paradigm, you should give significance to any book which is part of the canon, which then begs the question: what is part of the canon, and who decides?

So for example, does the book Esther teach you how to worship Jesus? Does the inclusion of Philemon in your canon change how you live as a Christian? How can you be sure Esther or Philemon are truly inspired? Or is it a case that you respect that which is part of the canon? If so, then how do you know what is and is not part of the canon?

TG was kind enough to give a very detailed response, but notice that his answer provided absolutely no way of determining what is or is not in the Christian canon. With that, let me respond to some of TG's objections.

He leans on Philo, but one has to wonder, did Philo endorse any book of the NT? If not, then on what grounds is Philo a source of guidance for determining what is canonical?

He leans on Josephus, but the same question as asked for Philo needs to be asked here as well. Furthermore, Josephus' canon was different from the canon of the Jews today (e.g. only four books in the Ketuvim?). Furthermore, Josephus' comments do not require that the four books of hymns to God and maxims of conduct be written before the time of Artaxerxes, and Josephus does not tell us what those four books are (perhaps one is Wisdom? or Sirach?).

TG makes an appeal to Melito's OT canon, but Melito's canon included Wisdom and excluded Esther! So does TG think Melito's canon is reliable or not?

TG's claim that the "apocrypha" was used by the 5th century, but read only by those with inferior positions in the church, is flatly false. I could easily show far earlier Church fathers (e.g. Cyprian) citing "apocrypha" texts as sacred scripture.

TG claims that Malachi teaches that no prophet will come between his text and the arrival of Elijah (John the Baptist), but no such restriction on prophets coming in the interim is actually stated in the text.

TG quotes FF Bruce as saying that there “is no evidence that these books were ever regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether inside or outside Palestine, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek”. Bruce is flat wrong, as one can see even in the Talmud Jewish groups who considered books like Sirach to be part of the canon.

TG notes that Jesus is not recorded as quoting from the "apocrypha" books in the NT. But then, so too, Jesus is not recorded as quoting from Esther either.

TG claims that the "apocrypha" books don't claim divine inspiration. Does Esther claim divine inspiration?

TG makes an appeal to literary style. That is probably the most ridiculous argument of all, as it is an appeal to esthetics, an area that has not set logic. For example, Muslims claim that there is no text more beautiful than the Qur'an. Several pagan Greeks (e.g. Celsus) noted that most of the NT texts were written in a Greek which was inferior to more classically celebrated Greek texts. An appeal to esthetics is nothing more than an appeal to personal opinion.

TG claims there are "errors" in the "apocrypha," but I supspect that he is being dishonest here. There are charges of "errors" against many texts. I am confident that he is INCAPABLE of answering every single CLAIM of contradiction or error in the 66 book canon, but that is not enough for him to start rejecting books. I supsect that he will assume there is an answer, even if he can't provide it. Thus if I am right, it would such that if he presupposes a book is part of the canon, charges of errors wont phase him. But if he does not presuppose such, he's happy to raise these charges.

TG claims only three divisions are described in Luke 24:44. Well, how is this relevant? Did TG even think about this? Where does Esther, or Chronicles, fit in those divisions? And does he wish to argue no other book than those can be canonical?

TG claims that Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 show that no book out side of the Protestant OT canon can be considered canonical, but those verses say no such thing.

Again I will state that TG is taking random shots here and there, but he provides absolutely no positive method for determining what is in the canon, and a lot of his objections would, if taken seriously, result in books in the Protestant canon being rejected. In short, TG merely (and tacitly) presupposed to Protestant canon, and went from there.

Moving on, I'd like to comment on Johnny Walker's post. He claimed the Catholic Church added these texts in the 17th century. But then how does he explain Christians treating them as scripture as far back as the 2nd century? Why do the Orthodox also employ these texts as canonical?

Finally, I'd like to say this. Anyone who seriously wants to address this issue in an adult way (rather than a childishly polemical fashion) first needs to grapple with the question of how the canon is determined. Who decides what is and is not in the canon? Many Protestants don't even realize they are merely accepting the canon decided upon by Martin Luther. Is he an authority? If so, why? If not, then who is? This is the real honest first step to addressing this question.

Answer 10

You can be certain that they are not. Nor are any other writings; there is not the slightest shred of evidence to suppose that god even exists, let alone inspired anything.

Answer 11

They prove that scriptures were cherry picked at the very least, and probably manipulated at worst.