Theopedia

Apocrypha

Apocrypha refers to a group of Jewish writings from the intertestamental period, such as Tobit, Judith, and 1-2 Maccabees, that were included in the Greek Septuagint alongside the Old Testament books but were never part of the Hebrew canon. Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church receive most or all of these books as Scripture, calling them “deuterocanonical.” The Reformed confessions, following the Hebrew canon received by the Jewish people (Rom. 3:2), reject them as uninspired and therefore no part of the canon of Scripture.

Confessional Definition

The Second London Baptist Confession states the point directly:

“The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.”1

The confession’s language, “no otherwise… than other human writings,” denies the Apocrypha any status between ordinary literature and inspired Scripture: it may be read as one would read any other historical book, but it cannot bind the conscience or establish doctrine.

Biblical Basis

Two lines of argument, both used against Rome’s claim that the church’s authority to canonize extends to the Apocrypha, ground the confessional position.

The first is the principle that the Old Testament canon belongs to the people to whom it was originally entrusted. Paul states that the Jews “were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), and Michael Kruger takes this as sufficient warrant for the church to receive the very books, and only the books, that Israel itself received as canonical.2 The Apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew canon and so falls outside that inheritance.

The second is the argument, pressed by Petrus van Mastricht against the Roman Catholic position, that the canon was closed by apostolic authority. Mastricht points to John’s closing warning against adding to the words of the prophecy of his book (Rev. 22:18-19) as marking the canon sealed, after which “the Jewish church, to whom the Old Testament canon was given, never received those books as canonical.”3

Historical Development

The dominant position among the church fathers, though not a universal one, followed the Hebrew canon rather than the wider Septuagint collection. Kruger names Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, and Jerome as fathers who held to the Jewish Old Testament canon over the Apocrypha.2 Jerome in particular was “decidedly against” apocryphal canonicity, arguing the point in his prologue to his commentary on Daniel, while Augustine was more favorable to the books yet still conceded that the Jews themselves had not received them into their canon.4

Rome did not formally settle the question until the Council of Trent in 1546, which “made a formal and official declaration on the canon of the Bible, particularly the Apocrypha,” for the first time in the church’s history.4 Kruger argues that the medieval church departed from the earlier patristic consensus rather than continuing it: several of the apocryphal books were used to support doctrines such as purgatory and prayers for the dead.2

The Church of England took a middle path at the Reformation. Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles lists the Old and New Testament canon, then states of “the other Books,” attributing the formula to Jerome, that “the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”5 Jerome, credited with the formula, had himself argued against the Apocrypha’s canonicity outright.

Opposing Views

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both receive most of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture, terming it “deuterocanonical” (a “second canon”), on the ground of the books’ inclusion in the Septuagint and their frequent citation by the church fathers.6 The exact list varies by communion: Rome’s Tridentine canon includes Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and additions to Esther and Daniel; Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Bibles additionally include 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151, with Slavonic (Russian) Orthodox Bibles including 2 Esdras and Oriental Orthodox canons including Jubilees and 1 Enoch.

Mastricht records the Roman Catholic case for canonicity as resting on three grounds: the apocryphal books are frequently cited by the church fathers; the fathers frequently call them “canonical”; and they were catalogued as canonical by Pope Innocent I, a catalogue later carried down to the Council of Trent.6

Objections and Responses

The fathers cite the Apocrypha, so the fathers received it as canonical. Mastricht responds that citation alone proves nothing, since the fathers also cite books that are undisputedly apocryphal in the pejorative sense.3

The fathers call the Apocrypha “canonical.” Mastricht answers that where this language occurs it is used “in an improper, more general, and broader sense” for books read in the church for edification rather than treated as Scripture proper, citing Augustine’s own usage in The City of God and On Christian Doctrine.3

Pope Innocent I catalogued the Apocrypha as canonical, and that catalogue passed down to Trent. Mastricht replies that the canon had already been sealed by apostolic authority (Rev. 22:18-19) centuries before Innocent I, so no later catalogue, however long its transmission, could reopen it.3

Related Doctrines

References

  1. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), chap. 1, “Of the Holy Scriptures,” para. 3. ↩

  2. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), chap. 6, “The Corporate Reception of the Canon.” ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, vol. 1, Prolegomena, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), chap. 2, “Holy Scripture,” 262. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Kruger, Canon Revisited, chap. 1, “The Church’s Book.” ↩ ↩2

  5. Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571), Article VI, “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.” ↩

  6. Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, vol. 1, chap. 2, “Holy Scripture,” 261. ↩ ↩2