What Role Does the Apocrypha Play in Christian Theology?
Definition and Historical Background of the Apocrypha
The term “Apocrypha” comes from the Greek apokryphos, meaning “hidden” or “obscure.” It commonly refers to a collection of books written between the Old and New Testaments, which are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches but are excluded from the Hebrew Bible and Protestant canons. These writings are sometimes called “Deuterocanonical,” signifying a “second canon,” to distinguish them from the universally accepted books of the Hebrew Bible.
The inclusion of the Apocrypha became a divisive issue during the Reformation when Protestant reformers rejected its canonicity, while the Roman Catholic Church formally affirmed it at the Council of Trent in 1546 C.E. This decree was made in reaction to Protestant critiques, particularly concerning doctrines such as prayers for the dead, which are supported by passages in books like 2 Maccabees.
Composition and Content of the Apocrypha
The Apocrypha includes books such as Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, along with additions to canonical books like Daniel (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of Azariah) and Esther. These works were composed primarily in Greek, though some may have earlier Semitic origins. They reflect Jewish thought and practice during the intertestamental period, a time of significant development in Jewish theology and culture.
Arguments for the Canonicity of the Apocrypha
Proponents of the Apocrypha’s canonicity often present several arguments in its favor:
Inclusion in the Septuagint (LXX): The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint, includes the Apocryphal books. Since the New Testament writers frequently quoted the Septuagint, it is argued that they tacitly endorsed the Apocrypha.
Early Church Usage: Some early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, referenced or quoted from the Apocrypha, indicating its acceptance in certain Christian communities.
Councils and Creeds: Local councils such as Hippo (393 C.E.) and Carthage (397 C.E.) affirmed the Apocrypha, and later ecumenical councils of the Roman Catholic Church upheld its canonicity.
Doctrinal Support: Certain doctrines, such as prayers for the dead and almsgiving for atonement, find direct support in Apocryphal texts, specifically in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46 and Tobit 12:9.
Protestant Objections to the Apocrypha
The Protestant Reformation rejected the Apocrypha, arguing that these books lack the marks of divine inspiration and were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish community. The primary objections include:
Absence from the Hebrew Bible: The Jewish canon, established well before the time of Christ, excludes the Apocrypha. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, confirms a 22-book canon (corresponding to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament) and explicitly rejects later writings.
Silence of the New Testament: While the New Testament quotes extensively from the Hebrew Bible, it never directly cites the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture.
Theological and Historical Errors: The Apocryphal books contain contradictions and theological concepts inconsistent with canonical Scripture. For example, 2 Maccabees promotes prayers for the dead, which conflicts with biblical teachings on individual accountability (Hebrews 9:27).
Rejection by Early Church Fathers: Influential figures such as Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha, stating that it could be read for edification but not for establishing doctrine.
The Role of the Septuagint in the Debate
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, is central to the argument for its canonicity. However, historical evidence indicates that the Septuagint was a fluid collection of texts rather than a fixed canon. Although the Apostles used the Septuagint for its accessibility, their silence on the Apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture undermines claims of endorsement.
The Council of Trent and the Canon
The Council of Trent’s affirmation of the Apocrypha was largely a reactionary measure against the Protestant Reformation. By elevating these books to canonical status, the Roman Catholic Church sought to defend doctrines such as purgatory and prayers for the dead. However, the council’s decision stands in stark contrast to earlier Jewish and Christian consensus, which consistently excluded the Apocrypha.
Examination of Apocryphal Themes and Doctrines
The Apocrypha reflects Jewish thought during a turbulent period in history, providing valuable historical and cultural insights. For example, 1 and 2 Maccabees document the Jewish revolt against Hellenistic oppression, while books like Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon explore ethical and philosophical themes.
However, the doctrines espoused in these writings often deviate from canonical Scripture. The concept of purgatory, inferred from 2 Maccabees, has no basis in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. Likewise, the idea that almsgiving can atone for sin, as suggested in Tobit 12:9, contradicts the Bible’s teaching that forgiveness comes solely through God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Historical and Doctrinal Implications
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon has significant implications for Christian theology and practice. For Roman Catholics, these texts provide a basis for doctrines such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the efficacy of works in salvation. For Protestants, their exclusion underscores the principle of sola scriptura—that Scripture alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
Protestant Affirmation of the Hebrew Bible Canon
The Protestant canon, which mirrors the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (reordered into 39 books in Christian Bibles), aligns with the historical and theological evidence for divine inspiration. This canon was universally acknowledged by the Jewish people, including during the time of Christ. Jesus referred to “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44) as encompassing the Scriptures, reflecting the tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible.
Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, likewise affirmed the closed nature of the Jewish canon, writing in Against Apion: “We have only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine.” These books correspond exactly to the Protestant Old Testament, excluding the Apocrypha.
The Role of the Apocrypha in the Intertestamental Period
Although the Apocrypha is not divinely inspired, it offers valuable historical insights into the intertestamental period. This was a time of great political and religious upheaval, including the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire. First and Second Maccabees provide detailed accounts of these events, offering a historical bridge between the prophetic silence of Malachi (approximately 430 B.C.E.) and the ministry of John the Baptist (approximately 29 C.E.).
These books, however, reflect a period when the prophetic voice had ceased. The Jewish community recognized that the era of divine revelation ended with the final Old Testament prophets, such as Malachi and Ezra. This cessation of prophecy is noted in rabbinical writings, such as the Babylonian Talmud, which states: “After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.”
Theological Divergences in the Apocrypha
Several theological ideas presented in the Apocrypha diverge from the clear teachings of the canonical Scriptures. These divergences serve as further evidence that these books lack divine inspiration.
Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory
The doctrine of prayers for the dead, supported by 2 Maccabees 12:45-46, underpins the Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory. This passage describes Judas Maccabeus offering sacrifices for fallen soldiers, suggesting that such acts could atone for their sins. However, this idea contradicts the biblical teaching that each individual is judged based on their earthly life (Hebrews 9:27). Salvation is by grace through faith, not by human works or posthumous interventions (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Almsgiving for Atonement
The Apocrypha often elevates human effort as a means of atonement, as seen in Tobit 12:9: “For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life.” This conflicts with the consistent biblical message that atonement comes only through God’s provision, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ. As Hebrews 10:4 declares, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The same principle applies to human actions, which cannot replace divine grace.
Works-Based Righteousness
The emphasis on works-based righteousness found in Sirach and other Apocryphal writings further diverges from the biblical teaching that righteousness comes by faith. Romans 4:5 emphasizes, “To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” While good works are a fruit of genuine faith, they are not the basis of salvation.
The Continuity of God’s Word
The exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon preserves the continuity and integrity of God’s Word. The canonical Scriptures reflect a unified message of redemption, centered on God’s covenant with his people and culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament points forward to the Messiah, while the New Testament reveals his fulfillment of these promises.
The Apocrypha, while historically and culturally significant, does not carry the same prophetic authority or doctrinal consistency. Its inclusion would obscure the clarity of God’s revelation and introduce theological concepts that conflict with the gospel.
The Authority of the New Testament Writers
The New Testament writers consistently affirm the authority of the Hebrew Bible while excluding the Apocrypha. Paul writes in Romans 3:2 that the Jewish people were “entrusted with the oracles of God,” indicating that the canon was already recognized and closed by the time of Christ. Jesus himself upheld the authority of the Scriptures, often quoting the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings to validate his teaching (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:27).
The absence of any direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament reinforces its secondary status. While the Apostles occasionally allude to non-canonical writings, these references do not attribute divine authority to such works. For example, Paul cites pagan poets (Acts 17:28) and Jude references the Book of Enoch (Jude 14-15), but these do not establish their inclusion in the canon.
The Protestant Principle of Sola Scriptura
The exclusion of the Apocrypha is consistent with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura—that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. This principle guards against the inclusion of writings that lack divine inspiration and ensures that doctrines are derived solely from the clear teaching of God’s Word.
The Reformation rejection of the Apocrypha was not an arbitrary decision but a return to the canon recognized by Jesus and the Apostles. By adhering to the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament, Protestants uphold the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.
Trusting the Canon of Scripture
The debate over the Apocrypha underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the biblical canon. The Protestant rejection of these writings is based on sound historical, theological, and textual evidence. The Apocrypha lacks prophetic authorship, doctrinal consistency, and endorsement by Jesus and the Apostles, distinguishing it from the inspired Word of God.
As believers, we can trust that God has preserved his revelation through the Scriptures, providing everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). By upholding the canon affirmed by Christ, we honor the authority of God’s Word and safeguard the gospel message.
The words of Psalm 119:160 encapsulate the enduring truth of Scripture: “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
The Role of Historical Evidence in Canonical Decisions
The determination of the biblical canon, including the exclusion of the Apocrypha, relies heavily on historical evidence. The early Jewish community, entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2), played a foundational role in defining the Old Testament canon. Their rejection of the Apocrypha offers critical insight into its status.
The Jewish canon was established well before the time of Christ, a fact affirmed by ancient sources such as the Talmud and the writings of Josephus. Josephus explicitly states that prophecy ceased after the time of Ezra, which aligns with the exclusion of the Apocryphal books, as they were written after this prophetic period. The lack of prophetic authority in the Apocrypha was a decisive factor in its exclusion from the canon.
Prophetic Cessation and the Apocrypha
The cessation of prophecy is a key criterion for understanding why the Apocrypha was not included in the Hebrew Bible. The Apocryphal texts emerged during a period when the Jewish community recognized that God’s direct revelation through prophets had ceased. This acknowledgment is reflected in rabbinic writings, such as the Babylonian Talmud, which states that after the deaths of the latter prophets—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.
The prophetic silence of the intertestamental period reinforces the conclusion that the Apocrypha does not carry the divine authority necessary for inclusion in the canon. In contrast, the books of the Hebrew Bible were written by individuals recognized as prophets or those under prophetic guidance, as evidenced by their supernatural confirmation and doctrinal consistency.
The Test of Propheticity
The test of propheticity—whether a book was written by a prophet or someone under the guidance of the prophetic office—is central to determining canonicity. Canonical books consistently pass this test, as seen in their alignment with God’s revealed truth and their ability to predict events with supernatural accuracy. For example, Isaiah’s prophecies about the Messiah (Isaiah 53) and Daniel’s predictions of successive world empires (Daniel 2) display clear marks of divine inspiration.
The Apocryphal books, however, fail this test. They do not claim prophetic authorship, nor do they include predictive prophecy. In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 explicitly acknowledges that prophecy had ceased in Israel, further disqualifying the Apocrypha from canonical status.
The Canon of Jesus and the Apostles
The canon recognized by Jesus and the Apostles provides the ultimate validation of the Hebrew Bible. Jesus frequently referred to the Scriptures as a unified whole, using the phrase “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). This tripartite division corresponds exactly to the Jewish canon and excludes the Apocrypha.
The New Testament writers, following Jesus’ example, also consistently cite the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. With over 250 direct quotations and hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament, the New Testament authors demonstrate their reliance on the established Jewish canon. The complete absence of Apocryphal citations underscores its exclusion from the canon.
The Danger of Doctrinal Error
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon introduces theological errors that conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture. For instance, the concept of prayers for the dead found in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46 has no foundation in the Old or New Testaments. This doctrine undermines the biblical principle of individual accountability before God, as stated in Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.”
Similarly, the idea of almsgiving as a means of atonement, presented in Tobit 12:9, contradicts the central biblical teaching that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, not a result of human effort (Ephesians 2:8-9). These doctrinal inconsistencies demonstrate why the Apocrypha cannot be considered part of the inspired Word of God.
Historical Councils and the Canon
While early church councils such as Hippo (393 C.E.) and Carthage (397 C.E.) affirmed the Apocrypha, these were local councils and not universally binding. Their decisions reflected regional preferences rather than the consensus of the entire church. The Protestant Reformation’s rejection of the Apocrypha was not a novel innovation but a return to the canon affirmed by Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Jewish community.
The Council of Trent’s decision to include the Apocrypha as canonical in 1546 C.E. was a reactionary measure against the Reformation. This council sought to bolster Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and prayers for the dead, which lacked support in the canonical Scriptures. The timing and polemical nature of this decision further undermine its legitimacy.
The Integrity of the Protestant Canon
The Protestant canon, comprising the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament, reflects the historical and theological evidence for divine inspiration. This canon aligns with the writings recognized by Jesus and the Apostles and affirmed by the Jewish community as the Word of God. By excluding the Apocrypha, the Protestant canon preserves the purity and authority of Scripture.
The Authority of Scripture Alone
The exclusion of the Apocrypha from the canon is consistent with the principle of sola scriptura, which upholds Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. The Apocryphal books, while valuable for historical and cultural understanding, lack the marks of divine inspiration and introduce doctrinal errors that conflict with the gospel.
Believers can trust that the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient, providing everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). By adhering to the canon affirmed by Jesus and the Apostles, we honor the integrity of God’s Word and safeguard its transformative power.
The Apocrypha holds historical and literary value, offering a glimpse into the intertestamental period and Jewish thought. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Protestant position that these books are not inspired Scripture. The absence of prophetic authorship, their exclusion from the Jewish canon, and their silence in the New Testament affirm that the Apocrypha does not belong in the canon of Scripture.
As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” By adhering to the canon recognized by Jesus and the Apostles, believers can trust in the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Online Guided Bible Study Courses
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
