I remember, just as I believe many others do, my first time hearing about the Apocrypha. I had a catholic friend at high school scoff at my Bible claiming, “you know that’s not even the whole thing, right?” To think that the scriptures I had held in such high regard my entire life were possibly incomplete came as an absolute shock and, quite frankly, scared me. I began to realize not just my own ignorance, but the unfamiliarity rampant amongst seemingly most Protestant Christians, when it came to the apocryphal texts. It is in the face of such ignorance regarding the Apocrypha that I believe protestants ought to make an effort to understand what these writings are, why they are not regarded as canon, and what that means for us in how we approach them.
The word Apocrypha is derived from the Greek word apokryphos, which can be translated as “hidden” or “obscure,” and is used to refer to a collection of religious texts that, while not remaining in the standard Hebrew Scriptures, are regarded as canon in some Christian Old Testaments. These texts are regarded as biblical canon in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox sects, but are not held in such regard by Protestants. Henceforth, such writings serve as a primary distinction between the three branches of Christianity. The specific writings adhered to may vary by tradition, but historically the books that make up the Apocrypha are additions to the Book of Esther, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon, Ecclesiasticus (or Ben Sira), 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Judith, Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, The Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, Susanna, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
These books were written between the end of the Old Testament around 400 B.C. until the beginning of the New Testament. Each book presents something different. Books such as first and second Maccabees are more historical in nature, detailing the Maccabean revolt and the origins of Hanukkah, while other books such as Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon contain wise sayings regarding daily life and the “Fear of the Lord.”
The reason for such a differentiation in canonicity revolves around one central doctrine: Divine Authority. Catholics and Orthodox believe that these writings are just as divinely inspired as Genesis or Isaiah, however Protestants view them differently due to three reasons in particular. Firstly, the lack of apostolic reference. The New Testament authors quote the Old Testament hundreds of times without ever referencing the Apocrypha. Jesus also refers to the “Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” in Luke 24:44 which refers to a standard perspective on the Hebrew Canon that excluded the Apocrypha. Secondly, the lack of Hebrew origin. The “oracles of God” that Paul references the Jewish people being entrusted with in Romans 3:2 is their Tanakh which does not include the Apocryphal texts. The fact that the Jews do not even include these books is weighty evidence against their authority. Thirdly, they contain their own inconsistencies. For example, Judith mixes up the Persian and Babylonian empire in its accounts and 2 Maccabees refers to praying to the dead to atone for sin, which is inconsistent with New Testament atonement theology.
So how ought we approach such books? I believe we ought to approach the books of the Apocrypha with great interest for their capability to provide historical insight, encourage the spiritual life, and present valuable virtues. However, they must not be sourced as being capable of constructing doctrines, defined as divinely God-breathed, or held in parallel authority with the 66 books of the Protestant Old and New Testaments. While these differences in beliefs may exist, we cannot let them be anything more than opinions. It is with a loving discernment that believers ought to approach such topics as it is only through approaching the matter with a heart of love can we lovingly get to the heart of the matter.
Written by Brock Bridle