The three major sections of Christianity—Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant—agree about the content of the New Testament canon, but they differ on the number of books included in the canon of the Old Testament. Whereas Protestants recognize thirty-nine books as forming the canon of the Old Testament, Roman Catholics accept forty-six books plus additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Protestants refer to the seven additional books as Apocrypha while Catholics refer to them as Deuterocanonical. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have traditionally included an even larger number of apocryphal books in the Old Testament canon.
Apocrypha – a Greek term meaning “hidden” or “secret.” It refers to a collection of books dating from about the third century before Christ until roughly AD 100.
Deuterocanonical – is a Greek term meaning literally “second canon.” Since the Council of Trent (1545–1563), it is used by Roman Catholics to describe the seven books and additions to Daniel and Esther called Apocrypha by Protestants.
The apocryphal books – Because the books of the Apocrypha are not included in many Protestant Bibles it may be helpful to enumerate their names. First of all there are two narratives entitled Tobit (sometimes also called Tobias) and Judith. Of a somewhat similar nature are three additions to the Book of Daniel known as “Susanna,”… . “The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men,” and “Bel and the Dragon.” There are six additions to the Book of Esther; however, they are not usually given separate names. Then there are two wisdom books among the Apocrypha entitled Wisdom (of Solomon) and Ecclesiasticus [not to be confused with the canonical book Ecclesiastes], also known as The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (or, for short, Sirach). Then there is the Book of Baruch and two books of Maccabees; the latter describe, from two different perspectives, the revolt of the Jews against Antiochus IV in the second century BC Sometimes other books are mentioned among the Apocrypha, such as First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, but these are not included in the Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament.
Although there are various views concerning what time the content of the Old Testament canon was finalized among the Jews, there is weighty evidence that the Hebrew Scriptures, held as sacred by them in the time of Christ and the apostles, contained the same books that are accepted as canonical in the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles today. Neither the Jewish nor the Protestant canon includes the Apocrypha. How then did they come to be included as canonical in Roman Catholic Bibles? The process by which this happened is difficult to trace with exactness. There is enough evidence, however, to provide us with clues as to how the difference came about.
References to apocryphal books – The first major fact to be stated is that there are no quotations from the Apocrypha in the Gospels or in any other books of the New Testament while there are quotations from or references to most of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, quite often quoting them as Scripture. In Christian writings of the second century there are some quotations from or allusions to the Apocrypha, but with few exceptions they are not quoted as Scripture. Most of these quotations or allusions are taken from three books of the Apocrypha: Wisdom, Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus.
The list of Melito – Very significant is the fact that the earliest list of Old Testament books by a Christian writer, Melito, who was bishop of Sardis in the second half of the second century, does not contain the Apocrypha. He went to the East to make himself “accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament,” which he lists as follows:
The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [now called the books of Samuel and Kings], the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom [not to be confused with the apocryphal book called Wisdom], Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [Ezra and Nehemiah].1
This list, though slightly different as to the order of the books, is identical with the list of Old Testament books in Protestant Bibles, except that the book of Esther is missing from Melito’s list.
Quotations from the Apocrypha in the Church Fathers – From the end of the second century AD onward, we find that some apocryphal books begin to be quoted more frequently and are sometimes quoted as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150– c. 215), for instance, treats the apocryphal books Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom as Scripture. During the third and fourth centuries a number of Christian writers, both Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin), follow the same practice. What caused this change in attitude towards the Apocrypha? There is no easy, clear-cut answer to this question. One theory holds that the Jews in Alexandria accepted the Apocrypha as part of the Greek Old Testament (called Septuagint or LXX) in contrast to the Hebrew Old Testament of the Jews in Palestine. Supposedly Christian scholars like Clement of Alexandria then received this expanded Old Testament canon from the Alexandrian Jews.
However, the available evidence suggests that the Jews in Alexandria had the same canon as the Jews in Palestine. The Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 20 BC– c. AD 50), foremost among Alexandrian Jewish scholars, never once quoted from the Apocrypha. Why, then, did a number of Christian writers in the third and fourth centuries begin to quote the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon? And what led to a fairly general acceptance of the Apocrypha into the canon towards the end of the fourth century?
Inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Greek Old Testament – A number of factors may have contributed to the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Greek Old Testament. It is important to understand that in the early centuries of the Christian era there existed no Bibles in one unit as we have them today. Individual books were written on scrolls, and it took many scrolls to form a collection of all the books of the Bible. It was therefore easier to mix apocryphal books with canonical books. That a pagan mindset infiltrated Christianity when it replaced pagan religion as the state religion in the Roman Empire during the fourth and fifth centuries is another possible contributing factor, because the apocryphal books contain stories and teachings suited to that pagan mindset. The Septuagint became the Scriptures universally used by Christians, and often they considered them as more inspired than the Hebrew Scriptures, which were used by the Jews. This is illustrated in the case of the disagreement between the Church Fathers Jerome (ca. 345–420) and Augustine (354–430).
Jerome, who was born in Italy, spent much of his life in Palestine where he became proficient in the knowledge of the Hebrew language. In AD 382 a synod in Rome under the leadership of pope Damasus I (AD 304–384) issued a statement on “The Canon of Sacred Scripture,” which included the apocryphal books Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, Judith, and two books of Maccabees. The statement is part of the so-called “Decree of Damasus.”2 This is the first Catholic synod that voted to include apocryphal books in the Old Testament canon.
Damasus requested Jerome, who was his secretary from AD 382 until 384, to make a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin. Jerome, who after the death of Damasus returned to Palestine, spent many years on this task. He decided to make his translation from the original Hebrew text rather than from the Greek text. When Augustine came to know this he exhorted Jerome to give preference to the Greek text of the Septuagint, “which has the very weightiest authority.”3 Jerome, who knew both the Hebrew and Greek texts well, disagreed with Augustine. He was convinced that books not found in the Hebrew Scriptures “must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings.”4 However, Augustine, who was bishop of Hippo in North Africa, took a leading part in the Third Council of Carthage in AD 397, which voted a statement, “The Canon of the Sacred Scripture” that included the same apocryphal books as did the statement issued by the synod in Rome in 382. These and similar statements came to define the canon of the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, as used in the Roman Catholic Church for more than a thousand years until the time of the Protestant Reformation.
The Protestant Reformation and the Apocrypha – From time to time the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of the Old Testament was questioned in medieval times, but the decisions concerning the canon made in earlier centuries seemed to guarantee their permanent status as part of the canonical Scriptures. This acceptance changed with the rise of the Protestant Reformation. The appeal of Martin Luther (1483–1546) to Holy Scripture as the final authority by which all doctrines and teachings should be judged pressed the issue as to which books constituted Holy Scripture. In his German translation of the Bible, published in 1534, Luther placed the apocryphal books in a separate section entitled, “Apocrypha: these books are not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read.”5
Other Protestant translations of the Bible, published even before Luther’s German Bible, separated the apocryphal books from the canonical books, not because they despised them, but as the Reformer John Oecolampadius (1482–1531) stated, because “we do not allow them divine authority with the others.”6 The Reformers appealed to the facts that the Hebrew Scriptures did not contain the Apocrypha, that the Church Fathers were not in agreement about their inclusion in the canon, and especially that Jerome had objected to their inclusion when he translated the Old Testament into Latin.
The Council of Trent defended the Apocrypha – The Roman Catholic Church reacted to all of this in the Council of Trent, which convened intermittently from 1545 until 1563. During its fourth session it issued, on April 8, 1546, a “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.” Besides declaring that the Council “receives and holds in veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence” all the books of the Old and New Testaments as well as the unwritten traditions, it added a list of the sacred books to be included in the canon. The list included the traditional list of Apocrypha and the decree declared that if anyone “should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, … as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, … let him be anathema.” 7 From Trent onwards all Catholic Bibles include the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament. More than three centuries later Vatican Council I in its “Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith,” issued on April 24, 1870, strongly affirmed the decree issued by the Council of Trent.
Martin Luther placed the apocryphal books between the Old and New Testaments and stated that “these books are not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read.”
Many Protestant Bibles, published during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, would insert the Apocrypha as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. Admittedly, there also were editions that did not include the Apocrypha at all. A definite change came in the nineteenth century when, in 1827, the British and Foreign Bible Society, after considerable debate, decided no longer to include the Apocrypha in any of their Bibles. This decision was followed by other Bible societies in Europe and North America. As a result most Protestant Bibles in the last two centuries have been printed without the Apocrypha. However, the second half of the twentieth century has seen a renewed interest in the Apocrypha among Protestants due to an increasing emphasis on the critical scholarly study of biblical and apocryphal literature and a greater ecumenical interaction between the three major branches of Christianity: Protestantism, Catholicism, and the Orthodox churches. Consequently, while most Protestant Bibles are still printed without the Apocrypha, there is a tendency, especially in scholarly circles, to blur the difference between the canonical books and the Apocrypha.
“One of the great values of the Appocrypha for the Christians was the fact that it bridged the gap between the end of prophecy and the writing of the NT books, furnishing valuable historical, political, and religious information which would otherwise have been difficult to obtain” (R. K. Harrison, “Apocrypha,” The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, M. C. Tenney, ed., 5 vols. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009], s. v. Apocrypha).
While this historical survey raises serious questions about the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of the Old Testament, this inclusion is even more questionable when we consider the theological differences between the apocryphal and the canonical books. It is noteworthy that there are indications in the Apocrypha that at the time of their origin the prophetic gift had ceased. In “The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men,” which is one of the additions to the canonical book of Daniel, it says in verse 15, “and at this time there is no prince, or prophet, or leader.”8 This of course is not in harmony with the biblical record, because there were at least two prophets at the supposed time of the prayer: Daniel at the court of king Nebuchadnezzar and Ezekiel among the exiles.
A description of the condition of Israel in the time of the Maccabees records that “there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that the prophets ceased to appear among them” (1 Macc 9:27). In fact, the Prologue to the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus or Sirach seems to indicate that the threefold canon of the Hebrew Scriptures—“the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers”—was already in existence. The prophetic voice of the canonical prophets is absent from the apocryphal books.
The immortality of the soul – The Apocrypha, originating between 200 BC and AD 100, show marked differences with the canonical books in theology and historical truthfulness. For example, the doctrine of the soul in the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon is distinctly different from the concept of the soul in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Wisdom 8:19, 20 we find these words supposedly written by Solomon in reference to himself: “As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.” This text presents a body-soul dualism that is foreign to the teaching of the Old Testament, which holds that the entire human being is a living soul (see Gen 2:7). The text also implies the preexistence of the soul, a doctrine unknown to the canonical Scriptures. From this text and other passages in the book Wisdom (such as Wisdom 2:23, 3:1; and 9:15) some have derived the doctrine of an immortal soul.
John Collins, giving a Catholic view of the deuterocanonical books, observes that the Hebrew Bible “is notoriously lacking in attestations of immortality and resurrection.” He then stresses with obvious approval “the support of the Wisdom of Solomon for the immortality of the soul, an idea that presupposes Greek anthropology and is alien to Hebrew thought.” After quoting Wisdom 2:23 and 9:15 in support, he concludes that, “On this point the deuterocanonical book provides an important foundation for the Catholic tradition, which affirms both the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul.”9 Collins is correct in observing that the Hebrew Scriptures do not support the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; neither do they support the body-soul dualism of Greek philosophy and Catholic tradition. However, they do teach the doctrine of the resurrection. Jesus made that clear to the Sadducees as recorded in Matthew 22:23-33.
Salvation by works – Another teaching in some of the Apocrypha contrary to that of the Holy Scriptures is the doctrine of atonement. In Tobit 12:8, 9 we find an angel, called Raphael, instructing Tobit and his son Tobias that, “It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold. For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin.” This contradicts clearly the biblical teaching that sin is purged away by blood, in type by the blood of the sacrificial animals and ultimately by the blood of Christ in fulfillment of the Old Testament type (Heb 9:22; 1:3). It is Christ, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). There are several texts in the apocryphal books Tobit and Sirach focusing on almsgiving as a way to find favor with God. Tobit 4:10 tells us that “charity [almsgiving] delivers from death and keeps you from entering the darkness.” According to Sirach 17:22, “A man’s almsgiving is like a signet with the Lord.” However, most explicit is Sirach 3:30, “Water extinguishes a blazing fire; so almsgiving atones for sin.” This is clearly heretical. No amount of almsgiving can atone for sin! Rather, according to Leviticus 17:11, “it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” And the apostle Peter makes it clear that we were not redeemed with perishable things such as silver or gold—even if all given away as alms— “but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet 1:19).
Other contradictions – There are many other ways in which the teachings and historical narratives of the Apocrypha contradict the teachings and history of the canonical Old Testament. Sirach 46:20, speaking about the prophet Samuel, tells us that, “Even after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king [Saul] his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.” This obviously refers to the message given by the witch of Endor to King Saul, a message supposedly coming from Samuel. The clear teaching of the Old Testament is that “the dead know nothing” and that they never “have a part in anything that happens under the sun” (Eccl 9:5, 6). The spirit that communicated with the witch and king Saul was not the spirit of Samuel, but undoubtedly the lying spirit of a fallen angel.
Judith 9:2 ascribes the murder of the Shechemites by Simeon (and Levi, who is not mentioned in Judith) to divine providence in these words: “O Lord God of my father Simeon, to whom thou gavest a sword to take revenge on the strangers who had loosed the girdle of a virgin [Dinah] to defile her, etc.” This is in flagrant contradiction to the curse pronounced under inspiration by the patriarch Jacob in Genesis:
Simeon and Levi are brothers; their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their council; let not my glory be united with their assembly; because in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they lamed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel (Gen 49:5-7).
Historical inaccuracies – Besides such theological contradictions there are also many historical errors in the Apocrypha. The book Judith is riddled with historical inaccuracies. In Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar is said to rule “over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana.” Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the Babylonians in the great city of Babylon, not over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. Nineveh had been destroyed by king Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar. Arphaxad, as a ruler of the Medes in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, is unknown to both biblical and secular history. Similar historical errors can be found throughout the book. Bruce Metzger makes the following comment in a footnote: “Some scholars believe that the historical confusion of the book … is deliberate, intended to stamp the work unmistakably as fiction.”10 By contrast, the inspired books of the Old Testament give us genuine history, not fictional history. These differences constitute significant reasons why the Apocrypha should not be recognized or accepted as part of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Conclusion – The preceding discussion of theological aberrations and historical errors in the Apocrypha is by no means exhaustive. The evidence presented in this chapter is sufficient, however, to show the numerous contradictions and discrepancies in the Apocrypha when compared with the theological teachings and historical records in the canonical books of the Old Testament. While there may be valid reasons for studying the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books from a historical perspective, there are no justifiable reasons why they should be counted among the God-breathed Scriptures of which the apostle Paul wrote that they “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus,” and which he deemed “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:15, 16). They do not belong to the Scriptures of which Jesus said with divine authority: “These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39).
Peter M. van Bemmelen
Some of the books of the Apocrypha teach the immortality of the soul and salvation by works.
References
1 Melito, “Fragments No. 4: From the Book of Extracts,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. (Reprint edition, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951), 8:759.
2 Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), 33, 34.
3 Augustine, “Letter 28,” in Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part 2—Letters, Volume 1: Letters 1-99, trans. and notes Roland Teske; ed. John E. Rotelle (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001), 92.
4 Jerome, “Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 14 vols. (Reprint edition, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 6:490.
5 Martin Luther, “Prefaces to the Apocrypha,” in Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. E. Theodore Bachmann, 55 vols. (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 35:337, n.1.
6 Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Revised Standard Version (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1965), xv.
7 Denzinger, 244, 245.
8 Metzger, 210.
9 John J. Collins, “The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: A Catholic View,” in John R. Kohlenberger III, gen. ed., The Parallel Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), xxxiii, xxxiv.
10 Metzger, 76, note on Judith 1:1.
Take time to study the Bible, the book of
books. There never was a time when
it was so important that the
followers of Christ should study
the Bible as now.
YI, May 18, 1893