One argument I don’t use against the Apocrypha in discussions with Catholics is that of the purported historical errors in these volumes. The reason is that, as Catholics (at least faithful, traditional ones) believe the autographs of inspired scripture to be inerrant (click here for more on this), if one accepts a book (e.g., Judith) as theopneustos (God-breathed scripture), one will labour under the a priori assumption that this is something other than an error—it being a genuine mistake is not an active possibility within the realm of possible interpretations, so it would be better to discuss the reception of these books in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity instead. This was pointed out to James White by Gary Michuta during their 2004 debate on the Apocrypha, though it appears White did not get the point Michuta was making.
Notwithstanding, it is instructive to see how Catholics disagree among themselves as to how to answer these issues. The following are how Catholics offer
differing (sometimes contradictory) explanations of how to resolve some of the
historical issues within Judith and Tobit. If/when a Catholic apologist states
that the Book of Mormon or some other uniquely “Mormon” scripture is false and
uses the fact that LDS scholars and apologists are undecided as to how to
explain away a purported discrepancy, one should feel comfortable bringing up
similar issues (such issues are compounded in light of the Catholic dogma of
the inerrancy of the autographs [which is denied by many priests and scholars, some
of whom I know personally, but the historical dogma is that of inerrancy]):
Trent Horn:
. . . the alleged
errors in the deuterocanonical books, such as Judith identifying Nebuchadnezzar
as the king of Assyria instead of as the king of Babylon (Jud 1:1 ["It was
the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians
in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in
Ecbatana"]) or Tobit being described as having lived for more than 150
years (Tob 14:11 [“So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes, and
what injustice does-- it brings death! But now my breath fails me." Then
they laid him on his bed, and he died; and he received an honorable funeral”]),
can be explained. Specifically, these statements are only errors if the author
was asserting a literal description of history, but even Protestant scholars
agree that the authors of Judith and Tobit were not writing in the genre of
literal history.
When it comes to the
book of Tobit, Martin Luther called it a “pious comedy”, Bruce Metzger called
it an “adventure story”, and J.C. Dancy called it a “folk tale”. . . Concerning
Judith, Luther said it was fictional due to its titular character Judith (a
name that literally means “Lady Jew”) being a symbol for the Jewish people. (Trent
Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary
Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 57-58
[quotations from the NRSV of Judith 1:1 and Tobit 14:1 added in square
brackets])
James White calls
this approach to the alleged errors in books like Judith an “imaginative”
solution, which implies that it is ad hoc and unsound, but he does not interact
with any evidence for the nonliteral nature of these texts. Scholars of
Hellenistic Jewish literature, on the other hand, are well aware of how ancient
authors used anachronism in order to underscore the didactic nature of their
historical fiction. (Ibid., 59)
Robert Bellarmine
On Tobit:
. . . it is
customarily objected that this book seems to contradict itself. For, in chatper
3, it is said that Sarah, whom the younger Tobias was going to marry, lived in
Rages, a city of the Medes, where we read that Gabael was (Tobit 4). Later,
however, in chapter 9, when Tobias arrived at the place where Sarah was, from
there he sent the angel to Gabael in Rages; therefore it is not true that the
home of Sarah was in Rages.
Michael Medina in
book 6, chapter 14 on the right faith in God thinks in chapter 3 “Rages” is
read by a mistake in Scripture, since in Greek it is εν εκπατανοις. But it
is hardly credible that such an error could take place, since there is no
similarity between Rages and Ecbatana. Others, like Lyranus, say that either
there were two Rages in Media, or that certainly in chapter 3 Rages is meant,
not the city itself, but some places nearby; for, some one is said to live in
Rome, who actually lives in Tusculum or some other place outside of Rome. This
opinion is more common, and more true. (The First General Controversy: On the Word
of God, Book One, Chapter XI in Controversies of the Christian Faith
[trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2016], 63)
On the Book of Judith:
But there is a very
difficult objection against this book. For, this history seems to be very
contradictory, since in chapter 5 it is said that it took place after the
return of the people from the Babylonian captivity, and nevertheless it is said
in chapter 1 that at the time Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, was
fighting against Arphaxad, king of the Medes, who had built Esbatana, and these
things in no way are in agreement: for, at the time when the people returned
from the captivity, the monarchy of the Assyrians had been destroyed, and not
Nebuchadnezzar, but Cyrus, or Darius was ruling the Assyrians, and the Persians
and the Medes.
This great difficulty
in a marvelous way has teste the ingenuity of learned men. There are two main
opinions about this. One is of those want to place the history of Judith after
the Babylonian captivity . . . another opinion is that of those who teach that
the history of Judith took place before the Babylonian captivity . . .But none
of these opinions seem to be sufficiently probable . . . It seems to us what
should be said is that the history of Judith took place in the time of
Manasseh, king of Judah . . . Perhaps you will say: If this history took place
during the time of King Manasseh, why in the preparation for war, which is
narrated in this book, is there no mention of the king? Why is this the whole
affair attributed to the high priest?
I respond: perhaps
this war took place during the captivity of Manasseh and therefore, since the
king was absent, the affairs of the kingdom were conducted by the high priest.
Also, perhaps there is no mention of the king, because the war did not reach as
far as the city of Jerusalem, where the king was. (The First General
Controversy: On the Word of God, Book One, Chapter XII, in Ibid., 64, 65, 68)
Robert Sungenis
In defense of his claim that Nebuchdnezzar
in the book of Judith is not the king of Babylon:
R. Sungenis: Another
reference to your question is the work:
Discours sur
l'histoire universelle
by Jacques Bénigne
Bossuet, 1627 - 1704
Dessein général de
l’ouvrage
He writes: Saosduchin
fils d’Asaraddon, appelé Nabuchodonosor dans le livre de Judith, défit en
bataille rangée Arphaxad roi des Mèdes.
Translated from the
French: Saosduchin son of Asaraddon known as Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of
Judith beat Arphxad king of the Medes in an ordered battle.
URL: https://www.robertsungenis.org/2004/12/december-2004-qa.html;
cf. Ibid., "Question 39- Book of Judith: Was Nebuchadnezzer King of
Assyria?")
