About the Apocrypha
What is the Apocrypha?
The Apocrypha are "Books of the Bible" that not every branch of the Faith accepts as Scripture. When the Bible was originally compiled in the fourth century, they were included as part of the Old Testament. As time went on, they began to fall out of favor, and during the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers raised the question of whether or not these books belonged in the Biblical Canon.
During the Reformation, Martin Luther assembled and published the Luther Bible, which became a template for many of the Bibles that followed. In his edition of the Bible, he moved these contested Books out of the Old Testament and placed them in their own section, which he labeled "Apocrypha". Later publishers followed his arrangement, and the name has stuck.
Today, Catholics and some Protestant churches consider them to be equal with the rest of Scripture, while most Protestant groups do not. In fact, the majority of modern Protestant Bibles don't contain the Apocrypha at all.
During the Reformation, Martin Luther assembled and published the Luther Bible, which became a template for many of the Bibles that followed. In his edition of the Bible, he moved these contested Books out of the Old Testament and placed them in their own section, which he labeled "Apocrypha". Later publishers followed his arrangement, and the name has stuck.
Today, Catholics and some Protestant churches consider them to be equal with the rest of Scripture, while most Protestant groups do not. In fact, the majority of modern Protestant Bibles don't contain the Apocrypha at all.
Added or Removed?
If you've ever spent time listening to Catholics and Protestants bicker, there's a good chance that you'll have heard these accuse each other of altering the Bible. Since our Faith is based on the Bible's contents, changing the Bible - especially when done to promote an agenda - always leads to problems. But, since these Books are not universally accepted, people regularly argue that the other side has either added to or removed from the Scriptures.
And from certain points of view, both of them are right.
Thoughout most of recorded history, the church didn't really give the Apocrypha the same level of authority as the rest of Scripture. Instead of viewing these Books as divinely inspired, they were treated as useful reading. This changed during the Protestant Reformation, as the Council of Trent responded to the growing critisim by officially declaring these Books to be part of the Bible's Canon. Because of this, we can legitametely say that the Catholic Church elevated the Apocrypha to roughly the same status as the rest of Scripture - they just did it long after the Apocrypha was already in widespread use.
At the same time, since the Reformers moved these Books out of the Old Testament and later Protestant publishers stopped printing the Apocrypha altogether, we can also say that they removed parts of the Bible - it's just that they removed the parts they believed shouldn't have been included in the first place.
And from certain points of view, both of them are right.
Thoughout most of recorded history, the church didn't really give the Apocrypha the same level of authority as the rest of Scripture. Instead of viewing these Books as divinely inspired, they were treated as useful reading. This changed during the Protestant Reformation, as the Council of Trent responded to the growing critisim by officially declaring these Books to be part of the Bible's Canon. Because of this, we can legitametely say that the Catholic Church elevated the Apocrypha to roughly the same status as the rest of Scripture - they just did it long after the Apocrypha was already in widespread use.
At the same time, since the Reformers moved these Books out of the Old Testament and later Protestant publishers stopped printing the Apocrypha altogether, we can also say that they removed parts of the Bible - it's just that they removed the parts they believed shouldn't have been included in the first place.
Should the Apocrypha be considered Canon?
Truth be told, I'm not comfortable with giving a definitive answer to this question - better minds than mine have been debating this for hundreds of years - but I can provide some information that people have used to decide for themselves. From what I can find, there are about eight issues that you'll need to resolve before coming to any conclusion on the matter.
Issue #1: The Apocrypha is in the Septuagint
The Septuagint was a well-known version of the Scriptures used by Jesus and His Apostles during their ministries. Some people believe that because Jesus and the Apostles approved of this copy of the Scripture, they must also have approved of every work included in it, and thus they must have approved of the Apocrypha.
But, things are rarely that easy. For a start, there appear to have been several versions of the Septuagint. Later versions included the Apocrypha in whole or in part, but we don't know which version(s) Jesus and His Apostles were using. This problem can also be seen with a reference Jesus makes in Luke 24:44. In this verse, He mentioned "the Law, Prophets, and Writings", which are the divisions used by the Tanakh, or Hebrew Scripture. The Septuagint, however, was divided into four categories: the Law, the Prophets, History, and Poetry. If Jesus was showing approval of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, then why did He reference the older layout?
Another problem is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles quote any of the Apocryphal Books in the New Testament. So, while they did use the Septuagint, there is no clear evidence that they had anything to say about the Apocrypha itself.
But, things are rarely that easy. For a start, there appear to have been several versions of the Septuagint. Later versions included the Apocrypha in whole or in part, but we don't know which version(s) Jesus and His Apostles were using. This problem can also be seen with a reference Jesus makes in Luke 24:44. In this verse, He mentioned "the Law, Prophets, and Writings", which are the divisions used by the Tanakh, or Hebrew Scripture. The Septuagint, however, was divided into four categories: the Law, the Prophets, History, and Poetry. If Jesus was showing approval of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, then why did He reference the older layout?
Another problem is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles quote any of the Apocryphal Books in the New Testament. So, while they did use the Septuagint, there is no clear evidence that they had anything to say about the Apocrypha itself.
Issue #2: The Jewish people didn't agree about their status
Disputes over what counts as canon isn't a new thing, and it's one of the reasons why there were several sects of Judaism by the first century. Specifically, the Pharisees are known to have held many debates over which Books should be accepted. Sometimes, these debates were over the canonicity of Books we accept today, like the Book of Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. There is evidence that the Pharisees did occasionally quote from the Apocrypha during these debates, but this never resulted in their acceptance as Scripture by the Jewish community. This is highlighted by the fact that Masoretic Text, an authoritive version of the Jewish canon from the 11th century, does not contain the Apocrypha.
Issue #3: Scholars gave them lesser status
A strong argument against the canonization of the Apocrypha comes from church history. By the time of the Reformation, Biblical scholars were already saying that these works were less inspired than the rest of Scripture. So, when Martin Luther claimed that they were "profitable for reading, but not for doctrine", he was echoing what he had been taught by others. If the Church was not willing to give them the same value as the rest of Scripture back then, why should it be different now?
Issue #4: The Apocrypha is said to suffer from inaccuracies
One of the important hallmarks of Scripture is that it is True. If any single piece is in error, then the entire thing is invalidated. This is not an issue for the universally accepted Scriptures, but it does appear to be an issue with some of the Apocryphal Books.
The Book of Judith is often cited here, as it contains several historical errors. For example, it claims that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the Assyrians from his capital of Nineveh. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, and, as one might expect, he ruled from Babylonia. This information was common knowledge when Judith was written, so what happened?
One explanation is that the Book of Judith is meant as a parable or theological story instead of a historical record. Evidence for this includes the fact that the name "Judith" simply means "lady Jew", and that her enemies in the story are representations of the Jewish people's two greatest enemies. It's also worth pointing out that there are the Books in the accepted canon, like the story of Job, that are often believed to be a parable rather than a record of a historical event.
The Book of Judith is often cited here, as it contains several historical errors. For example, it claims that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the Assyrians from his capital of Nineveh. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, and, as one might expect, he ruled from Babylonia. This information was common knowledge when Judith was written, so what happened?
One explanation is that the Book of Judith is meant as a parable or theological story instead of a historical record. Evidence for this includes the fact that the name "Judith" simply means "lady Jew", and that her enemies in the story are representations of the Jewish people's two greatest enemies. It's also worth pointing out that there are the Books in the accepted canon, like the story of Job, that are often believed to be a parable rather than a record of a historical event.
Issue #5: The Apocrypha promotes invalid doctrine
Many Protestants claim that the Apocrypha is only considered canon so that the Catholic Church can support unbiblical beliefs and practices, but this argument has several flaws. To start with, many Protestants don't know or understand Catholic theology well enough to actually argue against it. Another big flaw is that a lot of Protestant groups have no problem supporting unbiblical doctrines of their own.
As an aside, the Catholic Church doesn't have trouble supporting their doctrines using only the approved canon, which means that removing the Apocrypha wouldn't change anything.
As an aside, the Catholic Church doesn't have trouble supporting their doctrines using only the approved canon, which means that removing the Apocrypha wouldn't change anything.
Issue #6: It's redundant
Another argument against the inclusion of the Apocrypha is that it's redundant or doesn't reveal anything new, and frankly, I don't know why this would be a problem. People pick up on different things, so repeating a good moral using a different method should result in more people understanding what you're teaching. Also, there are already Books in the canon that repeat information - should we discard three of the Gospels because one was enough?
Bizarrely, some of the people who make this claim are also the people saying that keeping the Apocrypha results in new doctrine, and logically, it can't work both ways.
Bizarrely, some of the people who make this claim are also the people saying that keeping the Apocrypha results in new doctrine, and logically, it can't work both ways.
Issue #7: The Apocrypha contradicts accepted Scripture
If this could be proven, the entire conversation would be over in an instant. As stated above, the truthfulness of Scripture is very, very important, and the Truth cannot contradict itself. The catch is, when I look for examples of where the Apocrypha contradicts the Biblical canon, I only find three examples: a few verses in Tobit, a verse in Sirach, and the historical oddities in Judith that I've already covered.
But, when I look up these verses and read them myself, I get the impression that they have been removed from their context. Removing verses from their context is a cheap and easy way to change their meaning, so it's rarely a good idea.
Take Sirach 12:7 as an example. According to critics, this verse says that it's wrong for Christians to help non-Christians. This is in stark contrast to many other verses found throughout the Bible that implore us to help the needy and even love our enemies. However, if you were to read the entire passage, not just verse seven, you'll discover this isn't a contradiction at all - this chapter talks about what happens when you enable someone else's sins, and how it's a bad idea to hang around people who live morally corrupt lives. In other words, this verse basically saying something along the lines of "it's wrong to pay for someone else's illegal drugs", which is a far cry from telling someone to never help others.
But, when I look up these verses and read them myself, I get the impression that they have been removed from their context. Removing verses from their context is a cheap and easy way to change their meaning, so it's rarely a good idea.
Take Sirach 12:7 as an example. According to critics, this verse says that it's wrong for Christians to help non-Christians. This is in stark contrast to many other verses found throughout the Bible that implore us to help the needy and even love our enemies. However, if you were to read the entire passage, not just verse seven, you'll discover this isn't a contradiction at all - this chapter talks about what happens when you enable someone else's sins, and how it's a bad idea to hang around people who live morally corrupt lives. In other words, this verse basically saying something along the lines of "it's wrong to pay for someone else's illegal drugs", which is a far cry from telling someone to never help others.
Issue #8: The Apocrypha does not "sound" like Scripture
This is probably the weakest argument against the Apocrypha I've come across, but I'm still going to include it anyway. A lot of people feel that Scripture has a recognizable "sound" or "feel" to it, and according to this claim, the Apocrypha simply doesn't "sound" like Scripture.
One example is how the Book of Tobit reads like a legend or fable as opposed to the historical records in Chronicles or Samuel. Some of Books in the Apocrypha also describe fantastic events that seem too unusual and magical to be believable, like when angels fought alongside the Israelites in 2nd Maccabees.
My problem with this argument is that it's too subjective. Fantastic events, otherwise known as miracles, are found throughout the Bible. Many of these stories, such as Noah's Ark or the confrontation between David and Goliath, have been turned into sanitised entertainment for our children. The idea that some stories are "too magical" to believe in seems silly considering the stuff that's accepted without question.
One example is how the Book of Tobit reads like a legend or fable as opposed to the historical records in Chronicles or Samuel. Some of Books in the Apocrypha also describe fantastic events that seem too unusual and magical to be believable, like when angels fought alongside the Israelites in 2nd Maccabees.
My problem with this argument is that it's too subjective. Fantastic events, otherwise known as miracles, are found throughout the Bible. Many of these stories, such as Noah's Ark or the confrontation between David and Goliath, have been turned into sanitised entertainment for our children. The idea that some stories are "too magical" to believe in seems silly considering the stuff that's accepted without question.
What makes the Apocrypha different than other "additions" to Scripture?
If you've read my other pages on Christianity, you'll notice several common themes, one of which is that altering the Bible in any way is a Bad Thing. This makes it sound like I'm making an exception, like this one time it's okay to change the Bible. Logically, if the Apocrypha doesn't belong in the Scriptures, then it shouldn't be included, and it'd be wrong to argue otherwise.
So why doesn't this follow the same pattern?
My reasoning is actually fairly simple: unlike most of the questionable changes being discussed today, the question of whether or not the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible isn't a new one. The earliest editions of the Bible included these Books, so scholars had reason to feel they were valid Scripture at one time. This is very different from how groups today are "correcting" the Bible. Those changes are intended to create a "new message" that must replace the "old message" Christianity has taught for generations, which is incredibly suspect and often a sign of a dangerous cult.
So why doesn't this follow the same pattern?
My reasoning is actually fairly simple: unlike most of the questionable changes being discussed today, the question of whether or not the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible isn't a new one. The earliest editions of the Bible included these Books, so scholars had reason to feel they were valid Scripture at one time. This is very different from how groups today are "correcting" the Bible. Those changes are intended to create a "new message" that must replace the "old message" Christianity has taught for generations, which is incredibly suspect and often a sign of a dangerous cult.
What is the "New Testament Apocrypha"?
Although the term "Apocrypha" primarily refers to the Old Testament Books discussed throughout this page, there is another set of ancient documents that claim to be part of the Bible. As these were written after the events of the New Testament but before the Canon was decided, they are sometimes collectively known as the "New Testament Apocrypha".
Unlike the original set, these are almost universally rejected. Part of this stems from the fact that a majority of them claim to have been authored by a Biblical figure who died long before the work was written. Since their authorship is clearly fraudulent, nothing they say can be taken seriously, so they're treated as religious fan fiction, at best.
Yet, every so often, someone digs up another copy, and if it's a slow news cycle, headlines about a "new" discovery that "changes Christianity as we know it" will circulate until something that's more interesting happens.
Unlike the original set, these are almost universally rejected. Part of this stems from the fact that a majority of them claim to have been authored by a Biblical figure who died long before the work was written. Since their authorship is clearly fraudulent, nothing they say can be taken seriously, so they're treated as religious fan fiction, at best.
Yet, every so often, someone digs up another copy, and if it's a slow news cycle, headlines about a "new" discovery that "changes Christianity as we know it" will circulate until something that's more interesting happens.