What About the Apocrypha?
Question 1075
If you’ve ever looked at a Roman Catholic Bible, you’ll have noticed it contains more books than a Protestant Bible. These additional books—and portions of books—are known as the Apocrypha. So what are they, and why don’t Protestants include them in Scripture?
What Is the Apocrypha?
The term “Apocrypha” comes from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος (apokryphos), meaning “hidden” or “concealed.” The name originally suggested these were books whose origins were obscure or uncertain. Today, it refers to a collection of Jewish writings produced between roughly 200 BC and AD 100—the intertestamental period between Malachi and Matthew.
The books typically included in the Apocrypha are: Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Roman Catholic Church accepted these books as canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546, referring to them as “deuterocanonical” (second canon).
Historical Value
Let’s be clear: the Apocryphal books have genuine historical value. The books of Maccabees, for instance, provide our primary account of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire and the events that led to the Jewish festival of Hanukkah. They fill in historical gaps between the Old and New Testaments.
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) contains wisdom literature that influenced later Jewish thought. The Wisdom of Solomon articulates Jewish theology in Hellenistic terms. These books help us understand the world into which Jesus came—a world shaped by Greek philosophy, Roman rule, and developing Jewish traditions.
The early church valued these writings. They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by many early Christians) and quoted by some church fathers. But valuing something for its historical or devotional content is different from recognising it as inspired Scripture.
Why Protestants Reject Canonical Status
Protestants stand with the Jewish community and the early church in not accepting these books as Scripture. Here’s why:
The Jewish Canon Did Not Include Them
The Jews themselves never accepted the Apocrypha as canonical. The Jewish historian Josephus (first century AD) explicitly listed the Jewish Scriptures and noted that nothing had been added since the time of Artaxerxes—roughly the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi. The apocryphal books were written after this period. The Jewish community understood that prophetic revelation had ceased, creating a “400 silent years” before John the Baptist.
This is significant. The Old Testament was entrusted to the Jewish people (Romans 3:2), and they have consistently maintained a 39-book canon (arranged as 22 or 24 books in Hebrew). Jesus and the apostles consistently affirmed this Jewish canon.
Jesus and the Apostles Never Quoted Them as Scripture
While the New Testament quotes or alludes to the Old Testament hundreds of times, introducing quotes with phrases like “it is written” or “Scripture says,” it never does this with the Apocrypha. Not once. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Luke 11:51)—a reference to the Hebrew canon from Genesis to Chronicles—without extending it to include the Apocrypha.
Some argue that certain New Testament passages allude to apocryphal books. Even if true, allusion is different from quotation as authoritative Scripture. Paul quoted Greek poets (Acts 17:28) and Jude quoted the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch (Jude 14-15), but no one suggests these sources should be canonical.
The Early Church Distinguished Them
Many church fathers clearly distinguished between the canonical Hebrew Scriptures and the Apocrypha. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century, explicitly stated that the church reads the apocryphal books “for edification” but not “for confirming the authority of church dogmas.” He included them in his translation but marked them as separate from the canonical books.
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and other church fathers similarly distinguished these books from canonical Scripture. The Western church increasingly treated them as authoritative over the medieval period, but this represented a development away from the earlier position.
They Contain Historical and Theological Problems
The apocryphal books contain historical errors and teachings inconsistent with canonical Scripture. Tobit and Judith contain geographical and historical inaccuracies. More significantly, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 teaches the offering of sacrifice and prayer for the dead—a practice not found in canonical Scripture and used to support the later doctrine of purgatory. The Wisdom of Solomon’s teaching on the pre-existence of souls (8:19-20) reflects Greek philosophical influence foreign to biblical teaching.
None of the apocryphal books claim divine inspiration in the way the canonical books do. They lack the prophetic formula “thus says the LORD.” They were written during a period when the Jews themselves acknowledged there was no prophet in Israel (1 Maccabees 9:27; 14:41).
The Council of Trent
The Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546—significantly, in response to the Protestant Reformation. Luther and the Reformers had challenged certain Catholic doctrines (purgatory, prayers for the dead) that relied partly on apocryphal texts. Trent’s decision was as much about upholding disputed traditions as about genuine canonical evaluation.
This was the first infallible declaration by the Catholic Church regarding the precise contents of Scripture—remarkably late, given that the church had existed for 1,500 years. The Eastern Orthodox churches, incidentally, have a somewhat different list of deuterocanonical books, showing that even among those who accept additional books, there’s no universal agreement.
How Should We Use the Apocrypha?
Protestants can read the Apocrypha profitably for historical background and literary interest. Understanding 1 and 2 Maccabees helps us grasp the context of Hanukkah, mentioned in John 10:22. Knowing Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon illuminates Jewish thought in Jesus’ day.
But we read them as we read other ancient religious texts—with discernment, testing everything against canonical Scripture. They are not God-breathed in the way Scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16). They do not carry binding authority for faith and practice. They are useful but not authoritative.
Conclusion
The Apocrypha consists of valuable historical documents from the intertestamental period, but they are not Scripture. They were not accepted by the Jewish community, were not quoted as Scripture by Jesus or the apostles, were distinguished from canonical books by many church fathers, and contain errors and teachings inconsistent with inspired Scripture. Protestants follow the historic position of the Jewish community and the early church in recognising 66 books—no more, no less—as God’s inspired, authoritative Word.
“To them were entrusted the oracles of God.” Romans 3:2
