The Apocrypha – Canonical or Not?
I have published a couple of posts recently giving accounts of the history of the Bible and its translation, particularly for the English language. You can follow these links to read them if you wish:
A Short History of the King James Version
Transmission and Translation of the English Bible
I purposely left out the discussion of the Apocrypha, mainly because I did not want to distract from the source and translation issues. However, we should not ignore the Apocrypha, because the reasons for leaving things out of the canon are probably just as important as the reasons for inclusion.
This discussion provides a brief history of when and how the Apocrypha came to be included in Scripture and was later rejected. This is followed by a table listing the Apocrypha book names and some notes about their content. Finally, the main reasons Protestants have rejected the Apocrypha from the biblical canon are summarised.
Some Terminology
Firstly, some definitions and terms:
Apocrypha: The books included in an intertestamental section of some Bibles. There are minor differences between the Apocrypha as included in the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptic, and the Vulgate/Douay-Rheims Bibles. The word comes from a Latin/Greek linguistic heritage meaning secret or obscure
Deuterocanonical: Term used to describe the Apocrypha mainly by Roman Catholics and literally means “belonging to the second canon.” In this discourse, it may be considered a synonym for Apocrypha
Apocryphal writings: This term includes but is not limited to the Apocrypha and is extended to include other writings written in the style of scripture. There is a large range of non-canonical writing covering both the Old and New Testament periods. Most of it is of doubtful origin and/or could be described as religious fiction. The “Apocrypha” is the name of a specific section of the Bible, whereas apocryphal is a generic descriptor.
Pseudepigrapha: Term applied to apocryphal works that have false attribution. In other words, they have been written by someone other than who they claim as the author.
History
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) canon was largely set in the time of Ezra or in the Hasmonean period (2nd Century BC) There is some evidence that some changes were made up until the time that the Masoretic text was standardized in the 9th Century. None of the Hebrew sources of the Old Testament contained the books of the Apocrypha.
On the other hand, the Septuagint (The Greek translation) of the Old Testament does contain the Apocrypha and forms the basis of what is included in the Biblical Apocrypha today.
It is generally accepted that the books included in the Apocrypha were written in the period from 200 BC to 100 AD. They were never considered as part of the Hebrew canon. While there was some debate among Hebrew scholars about the inclusion of some books (Jonah, Lamentations, Daniel) in the canon up until the development of the Masoretic text (7th-10th Centuries AD) the apocryphal books were never included, and there is no record of them being considered.
The Vulgate
When Jerome was commissioned by Damasus to translate the Bible into Latin, he was faced with the issue of what should be included in the Vulgate. The books of the Apocrypha were in widespread use in the churches of the time, but he was of the opinion that while they were useful, they should not be part of the canon. Consequently, he included them in a separate section he called the Apocrypha. During his lifetime, most of these books were assimilated into the Old Testament. He added prefaces to the apocryphal books to the effect that they were for reading only and not to be used as the basis for doctrine.
Although the Vulgate was commonly used in churches from the 4th Century AD, it wasn’t until 1590 during the Council of Trent, and in response to the Protestant challenge, that the Roman Catholic Church officially adopted the Vulgate including the Apocrypha as the authorised version of the Bible.
Protestant
Luther did not accept the deuterocanonical books as equal to Scripture but commented that they were “useful and good to read.” Unlike other Bibles of his time, he followed the lead of Jerome by placing them in a separate section. Luther omitted some of the books from the Apocrypha as well. (Luther had some doubts about Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in the New Testament too. He did not put them in a separate section, but he did move them to the end of the New Testament – a place where they remain to this day.)
The King James Version followed the example of the Luther Bible and also the Geneva Bible, by including the Apocrypha as a separate section. All King James Bibles published prior to 1666 included the Apocrypha. During the period of Puritan influence there as a move to remove the Apocrypha from the Bible, and after 1666 both versions of the King James Version were produced. It wasn’t until 1826 that a move was made by the British and Foreign Bible Society to not print the Apocrypha from the bibles they produced. Surprisingly, the reason for omitting it was based more on cost reduction, rather than canonicity.
What is in the Apocrypha?
This table lists the books that are typically included in the Apocrypha where the apocryphal writings are collected together in a separate section. In the King James Version from 1611 until 1666 they were part of the Old Testament, as they are in the Douay-Rheims version. Note that Daniel and Esther are included in this list because they included significant apocryphal additions in the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims versions
|
Douay–Rheims |
King James Bible |
Notes |
|
Tobias |
Tobit |
The book is regarded as a fictitious story of a Jew born in Nineveh. It records a number of somewhat spurious miracles. Its main reason for inclusion is that it extols the purity of marriage. |
|
Judith |
Judith |
Tells the story of a beautiful widow who uses her charm and beauty to destroy an Assyrian general. Widely regarded as fiction |
|
Esther |
Esther and the Rest of Esther |
An extensive later addition to the story of Esther |
|
Wisdom |
Wisdom |
Written in the style of Proverbs probably in the 1st century BC. |
|
Ecclesiasticus |
Ecclesiasticus |
Often called Sirach in modern versions. It is a collection of wisdom sayings. |
|
Baruch |
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy |
Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe, but the consensus is that this was written after the Maccabean period. It provides general exhortations to the Jews of the Diaspora. The Epistle of Jeremy is also considered to be a later work. |
|
Daniel |
Daniel, Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon |
Additions to the story of Daniel that appear to be later additions. These additions appear to be somewhat fanciful and are regarded as fiction. |
|
1 Machabees |
1 Maccabees |
History of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabee uprising |
|
2 Machabees |
2 Maccabees |
This is an edited version of Maccabees 1 together with some insertions from the Pharisaic rabbinical tradition. |
|
Prayer of Manasses |
Prayer of Manasses |
This is purportedly the prayer of Manasseh when he repented. It is short with 15 verses. It is generally accepted that it is of Greek origin. There is a Hebrew “Prayer of Manasseh but it is completely different from this book. |
|
3 Esdras |
1 Esdras |
This is largely a Greek version of the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles and the book of Ezra with some differences in the text. |
|
4 Esdras |
2 Esdras |
This book is a composite of several manuscripts. While purportedly written by Ezra in contains elements that indicate it was written much later, possibly around the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. |
The Protestant Rationale
Protestants consider the Apocrypha to be non-canonical and list a number of reasons for that decision. These include but are not limited to:
- The doctrinal emphasis is different from Scripture:
- Almsgiving and good works count towards salvation
- Purgatory is a place where one goes to be purged for heaven
- The body weighs down the soul
- Prayers for the dead.
- Although the Books of the Apocrypha are set largely in the old and intertestamental periods, the only ancient manuscripts we have are written in Greek. There is some evidence from the idiomatic construction that some of them may have had Hebrew precedents, but the evidence is not conclusive.
- As a consequence of (2) the authorship of the books is under dispute. Some of them are quite clearly written in the style of the older prophets but were obviously not written by them as evidenced by their content. These books are regarded as pseudepigrapha.
- The New Testament does not quote from the Apocrypha. There is some discussion that some of what Paul wrote shows that he was familiar with it, but the evidence is unclear and disputed.
- Jesus quoted quite extensively from the Old Testament but not from the Apocrypha.
- Several miraculous episodes recorded in the Apocrypha are rather fanciful and appear more like magic than genuine miracles.
In summary, there is a general recognition that the books of the Apocrypha are not the same calibre as Scripture. That does not mean that they are wrong. There are passages that are quite uplifting.
Conclusion
Should we read the Apocrypha? The answer to that question depends on your attitude to study. Some of the books are definitely informative. In particular, the Maccabees books give an historical account of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabee uprising which is interesting to us for two reasons. Firstly, some churches see the Antiochus period as the fulfilment of some of Daniel’s prophecies. If you are interested in understanding their point of view and why we reject it, it is worth reading the source material that this view is based on, rather than simply accepting its rejection second hand, Secondly, the Maccabean period set the scene for Palestine during the time of Christ and in that respect provides useful background material.
(22)