Hidden Scripture?

Why Protestants Reject the Apocrypha

Aug 20, 2024

Which books belong in the canon of Scripture and thus constitute the rule of our faith? This is an important question and one that Protestants and Roman Catholics do not agree on. Protestants hold that 66 books belong in the Bible: 39 in the Old Testament spanning from Genesis to Malachi (in our modern English translations) and 27 in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. While Roman Catholics agree that these same 66 books all belong in the canon of Scripture, they add 7 additional books for a total of 73 (and also include some additions to the books of Esther and Daniel). These 7 additional books are often called “the Apocrypha” (meaning “hidden”) by Protestants, but Roman Catholics prefer to call them the “Deuterocanonical” books (meaning “second canon”).

In this article, I’ll be using the term “Apocrypha” to refer to the following books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. The Roman Catholic church has tried to use verses found in the Apocrypha to support doctrines like praying and making atonement for the dead (2 Macc. 12:44-45), giving alms to purge sin (Tobit 12:9), or the doctrine of purgatory (2 Macc. 12:40-42). Protestants would contend that these doctrines and others are antithetical to the Gospel and contradict clear Biblical teaching. Much is at stake when we ask, “Is the Apocrypha Scripture?”

Here are 3 reasons why the answer to that question is a resounding “no”:

1. The Cessation of the Prophets

After the completion of the book of Malachi around 400 BC, and the ministry of John the Baptist around 30 AD, it was an accepted reality among the Jews that the prophets disappeared. The prophets were God’s spokesmen in Old Testament times (Heb. 1:1), but if there were no prophets, was God speaking? The Jews would say no. The Talmud (written in the years after Christ), a collection of Rabbinic teachings, said, “Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit has left Israel.”1

The rabbis believed that prophecy had ceased during those days, that God was not speaking, and therefore that Scripture was not being written. But during this time, the Jews still recorded history. Religious writings were still produced just as many religious writings are produced in our own day. Some of these books were considered by the Jews to be especially significant, like the books that recounted the stories of the Maccabean revolt. And yet, these books were not held by the Jews to be on the same level as Scripture.

The great Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the late first century said, “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”2 Josephus is talking about the Apocrypha. The Jews didn’t deem these books as being on par with Scripture because they were written during a time when there were no prophets in Israel. Even the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees says that there were no prophets in Israel at this time (1 Macc. 9:27).

The fact that the Jews didn’t hold these books to be part of their Scriptures is extremely important because of what Paul writes in Romans 3. Paul says that one of the great advantages that the Jews have is that they were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). How remarkable is that? God chose a people to entrust His Word (“oracles”) to pass down through the centuries until the coming of Jesus Christ, when God began speaking through His Son (Heb. 1:2). If the Jews were entrusted with the Scriptures, that necessarily implies that they knew what books constituted Scripture!

When I purchased an engagement ring to propose to my wife, I was a poor college student living in a dorm with 7 other guys. I didn’t want to keep a ring worth thousands of dollars sitting in my dorm room unprotected, so I entrusted it to the care of my dean of students, who in turn locked it in a safe in his office. I can assure you that when I gave him that ring that represented a love so precious to me for safekeeping, I made sure he knew exactly what he was being entrusted with! Can we really believe that the Jews were confused about what books belonged in the very Scriptures they had been entrusted with? We cannot accept books from the Old Testament period as canon that the Jews rejected—books written apart from the pen or approval of a prophet. Therefore, we must reject the Apocryphal books as Scriptural.

2. Jesus and the Apostles Rejected It

Perhaps an even more pertinent question is, did Jesus and the apostles disagree with the Jews and accept these books as the inspired Word of God? The evidence shows that Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jews held a common understanding of the books that constituted the Old Testament and therefore that Jesus and the Apostles (like the Jews) rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. It was based on this common understanding of the Old Testament canon that Jesus was able to hold the Jews accountable for their failure to discern what the Scriptures taught concerning Him (e.g. Mt. 12:3-6, Jn. 5:39-40). Never once does Jesus debate the Jews about which books belong in the Bible.

Even more telling is the fact that Jesus and the apostles never quote directly from the Apocrypha or cite it as Scripture. Jesus and the apostles quote from the Old Testament as the authoritative Word of God over 295 times using phrases like, “It is written” (1 Pet. 1:6, Rom. 3:10, Luke 4:4), “the Holy Spirit says/spoke” (Heb. 3:7, Acts 1:6), “the Scripture says” (1 Tim. 5:18, Rom. 10:11), “fulfill what the Lord had spoken” (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). And yet, when it comes to the Apocrypha, never once do Jesus and the apostles use this terminology.

Roman Catholics rightly point out that several allusions to the Apocrypha can be found in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 11:35 likely alludes to the account of the Maccabean martyrs found in 2 Maccabees as it recounts stories of great faith throughout the history of Israel. Does this mean that the inspired author counted it as Scripture? No. Just two verses later in Hebrews 11:37, the writer of Hebrews refers to the Jewish tradition that Isaiah was sawn in half, found in the extrabiblical work called The Ascension of Isaiah. Yet no Jew, Protestant, or Catholic would contend that The Ascension of Isaiah is part of the Old Testament canon.

The New Testament authors allude to extra-biblical sources on several occasions to drive home a point or construct a helpful illustration. Paul quotes the pagan philosophers Epimenedes and Aratus in Acts 8:28. Jude cites the book of Enoch in Jude 14-15. And yet, we don’t hold these extrabiblical works to be Scripture just because the Apostles cited them.

The fact that Jesus and the apostles certainly knew of the Apocrypha but never cited them as authoritative Scripture shows that they held the common view of all the Jews: that the Apocrypha does not belong in the canon.

3. It’s Been Disputed Throughout Church History

Finally, we must consider what Church History has to tell us about this debate. After the first century, there was disagreement as to whether these disputed books belonged in the canon. Several Church Fathers thought that they did.

Most notably, Augustine defended the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon, being enamored especially with the stories of “the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs.”3 Yet he admitted that the Jews did not count them as Scriptural. It’s no surprise that three regional church councils that Augustine influenced agreed with his view of the Apocrypha (Hippo and Carthage between 393-419).

Many other church fathers rejected these books as Scriptural: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Naziansus, Basil the Great, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Julius Africanus, and Athanasius to name a few. Athanasius wrote that several of the Apocryphal books were “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”4

In the fourth century Jerome, perhaps the most qualified Hebrew scholar of his day, translated the Bible into Latin. This translation became known as the Vulgate. He included the Apocrypha in his translation but noted specifically that these books were not to be regarded on the same level as Scripture. He distinguished between “books of the canon” (Scripture) and “books of the church” (the Apocrypha) that were meant to be read for edification but not with the same authority.

Other notable figures who rejected the Apocryphal books as Scripture were Pope Gregory the Great, Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Ximenes. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin saw the books of the Apocrypha as edifying but rejected them as Scriptural for multiple reasons, not the least of which was Rome’s attempt to justify unbiblical doctrines from these books.

The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Reformation with the Council of Trent (sometimes called the Counter-Reformation). In April of 1546, for the first time in church history, the Roman Catholic church dogmatically declared the Apocryphal books to be Scriptural and pronounced a curse on anyone who said otherwise. The decision of Trent is still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church today. The implications of this decision are enormous. As Wayne Grudem points out, “In affirming the Apocrypha as within the canon, Roman Catholics would hold that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as ‘Scripture,’ while Protestants have held that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as his own words.”5

Conclusion

Given that the Apocrypha was not accepted by the Jews or by Jesus and the apostles as Scripture, and given that its canonicity has been disputed even by notable Catholic figures in Church history, I believe that these books are not part of God’s Word. To be sure, I’m not saying that the books of the Apocrypha are evil or bad. Many Christians have read them and have been encouraged by them down through the centuries. Try reading the account of the Maccabean martyrs and you will find yourself inspired to stand up for the Lord!

But there is a difference between being edified by something (like a devotional book) and acknowledging something as the inspired, infallible Word of the Triune God. What we believe about the Apocrypha cannot be divorced from what we believe about authority. What books will we recognize as the authoritative rule and standard of the Christian faith? What books will we live by? What books will we die for? I would contend that in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and not in 73, we have discovered the authoritative, infallible, rule of our faith—the Word of the living God.