How Different Traditions Treat the Apocrypha

Protestant Christianity is known for its characteristic emphasis on the Word of God as the only infallible rule for faith and life (see Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1). Because of this, answering the question “Which books belong in the Bible?” is of paramount importance to the Christian life. While the Protestant canon is defined by the sixty-six books from Genesis to Revelation, other traditions such as Roman Catholic and some Eastern Orthodox accept at least part of a set of books commonly called the Apocrypha as part of their biblical canon (or at least as “deuterocanonical”—secondary but sacred). This short article seeks to answer three questions: (1) What is the Apocrypha? (2) Should the Apocrypha be considered canonical? (3) How should Christians use the Apocrypha today?

What is the Apocrypha?

The Greek word Apocrypha means “hidden” and refers to a collection of books written largely in the intertestamental period from around the third century BC up to roughly the second century AD (somewhere between 300 BC–100 AD for a rough and debated date range). Precisely what this “hiddenness” means is a topic of debate, but it may refer to how this body of literature was used in private rather than in public—that is, it was for individual, private reading and study and not for use in corporate worship gatherings. Lending support to this idea is that one of the defining features of Old Testament scriptural books in this period is that they were stored in the temple, a status apocryphal books never reached.

The books that make up the Apocrypha vary among different traditions, but generally the Apocrypha consists of books added to some Greek Old Testament codices (especially Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus), including Esdras A (3 Ezra), Greek additions to the book of Esther, Judith, Tobit, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Sirach), the Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch (1 Baruch), additions to the book of Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), and 1–4 Maccabees. Some also include the Psalms of Solomon and Esdras B (4 Ezra). The genre and content of these books is variant, ranging from Historical Writings to Wisdom Literature to additions to biblical books.

Should the Apocrypha be considered canonical?

If these books were appended to Old Greek codices, does this mean that they should be considered canonical or scriptural? The short answer to this question is simply, “No.” Merely the inclusion of these books alongside translations of the Hebrew Old Testament does not necessitate that the books were considered of equal status as canon, let alone inspired. Of prime importance is the notion that Scripture validates itself as Scripture, the key definition of Scripture being that it is inspired by the Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). There is a keen awareness both in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha) that this type of prophetic activity ended in the days of Malachi.

The regular mantra among Old Testament prophets is, “Thus says the Lord,” identifying their own work as inspired. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, argues that the prophetic spirit of Old Testament books ended in the days of Malachi because no prophet has arisen since those days (Contra Apion 1:41), a view that 1 Maccabees shares (1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41; cf. the Prayer of Azariah 15). On top of this, the Jewish conception of the Old Testament canon was organized into a threefold shape called the TaNaK (T = Torah, N = Prophets, and K = Writings), which was at least assumed by Jesus in Luke 24:27 and 24:44. The Apocrypha itself testifies to this in Sirach as well as 4 Macc. 18:10–18, which would thereby exclude the Apocrypha as canon by its own delineation since it is not part of this threefold shape.

Additionally, none of the above codices have the same “Apocrypha.” Sinaiticus, for example, does not contain Baruch but does have 1 and 4 Maccabees, while Vaticanus does not have any of 1–4 Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh but does have Baruch. Alexandrinus, on the other hand, is the only of these three major codices that has all of 1–4 Maccabees. Moreover, some translations of the Old Testament into Greek do not contain them at all (for example, Aquila and Symmachus), nor are they included in any extant Hebrew manuscript tradition alongside the Old Testament. If there were a conscious effort to preserve the Apocrypha as canon or Scripture, it is remarkable that none of these major codices have the same Apocrypha and that some omit it altogether. It is far better to conclude that their inclusion was not about their canonicity, but rather how these non-canonical and non-inspired books could be an aid for interpreters. They provide information about intertestamental times or interpretations of the Old Testament to which people may not otherwise have access.

As such, while there is some debate, the makeup of the Old Testament canon was well established by the first century AD and excluded the apocryphal books. From the earliest writings of the Apocrypha, the Old Testament canon was already closed, and these books were not considered part of canonical Scripture until later in church history. Jerome, for example, was adamant in his view that apocryphal books were non-inspired and non-canonical. While he would include them in the Vulgate, his translation of the Bible into Latin, he insisted that they did not have authority to determine the doctrines of the church (see his Prologue to Wisdom and Sirach). When Athanasius speaks of some of the apocryphal books in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter (367 AD), he states that they “have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter.” One sentence later, he refers to the Apocrypha by name and calls it the “fabrication of the heretics.”

The majority of Christian tradition, with notable exceptions such as Augustine, has sided with the above conclusion that apocryphal books are not part of the Christian canon. This was even the majority position among Roman Catholic scholars until the Council of Trent (1546) deemed the books canonical in response to the Reformers’ insistence that these books were not canonical.

How should Christians use the Apocrypha today?

What, then, is the use of the Apocrypha for Christians today? It is important to note that non-canonical is not the same thing as not useful or unimportant. Any pastor’s study will have a Bible, but also a multitude of non-inspired writings that he may consult to aid in his study and understanding of the Scriptures. This is the proper place for the Apocrypha. It contains many themes from and references to the Old Testament that give us a window into how intertestamental Jews were reading and understanding the Old Testament Scriptures, some of which is quite insightful and even parallels teachings in the New Testament. It also provides some helpful historical information and context for the intertestamental period and into New Testament times. Perhaps the best way to summarize the use of the Apocrypha for Christians is the statement in WCF 1.3:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are not part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved of, or made use of, than other human writings. (emphasis added)