Contents:

• Background of The Apocrypha
• Canonical Development of The Apocrypha
• Historical Development of The Apocrypha
• Anglicanism and The Apocrypha
• Conclusion

Background of The Apocrypha

The Old Testament leads us to the conclusion that the Jews were left as citizens of the Persian Empire. They were returning from Babylon to rebuild the Temple under the governorship of Zerubbabel. Their very existence was threatened due to the surrounding enemies, such as the Philistines, Edomites and Ammonites, insomuch as their children were continually intermarrying with these foreign peoples. The culture of that particular geography was being conquered by the Hellenistic advancements of Alexander. The language, ideology, and patterns of life were threatening to the Jews in that they could lose their very religion because of this Hellenism.

The Greek culture had much more to offer the people: intellectual literature and philosophy, as well as art and modern politics. There was a tendency for the Jews to feel ashamed of their culture because it was not as intellectual and sophisticated as that of the prevailing Greek Hellenistic culture. The author of 1 Maccabees speaks of how some even left the faith to join this “mischief” (1 Macc. 1:15).

 After the death of Alexander, the empire began to swing toward Syria, another great Hellenistic kingdom. Then, in 175 B.C. a new king, Antichus, described by the Jews as “a vile person” (Dan. 7:8) and a “wicked root” (I Macc. 1:10) came to rule over the Jews. Antichus changed his name to Epiphanes, meaning “God made manifest.”

Antichus slaughtered many of the Jews for presuming that he once died. He also robbed the treasury of the Temple and blasphemed the Holy of Holies (II Macc. 5:5-16). He ordered all copies of the Law to be destroyed, forbade circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath, desecrated the Temple on Jerusalem and set up an altar in which swine were sacrificed to the Olympian Zeus. This was prophesied by Daniel (2:31) as “the abomination that maketh desolate.” The rest of the background of that day can be found in the actual books of Maccabees.

The Apocryphal book 1 Maccabees introduces us to the “pious ones.” These were the forerunners of the New Testament Pharisees.[1]We see the influence of the books by both the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the book of Judith we see the influence of the Zealots. These were the fanatics of the Jewish faith that considered assassination as a vital tool that was given to them by God to defend His people.

The setting of the Jews at the time of the Apocryphal books has much to do with the Jews being at the fringe of extinction; desperate to save themselves from this extinction, men rose up to save them. The Hellenizing of the culture was a sheer struggle for them and shows us that there is hope in prevailing over such atrocities as we encounter the same types in our day.

Canonical Development of The Apocrypha

The term ‘Apocrypha’ has different meanings depending on what person and era we adhere to[2]. We know the Apocrypha as the fifteen documents that are disputed amongst scholars as to whether they belong in the Canon of Scripture. The Protestant Canon, as brought forth by documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not include the Apocrypha as divine literature that can be used for the establishment of doctrine in the Church. Although, according to the Westminster Assembly, as well as many of the other reformers, including Luther and Calvin, the Apocrypha is an edifying set of documents and can be read by all.

The word ‘Apocrypha’ is from the Greek language and refers to things being ‘hidden away.’ Some have believed that these books were hidden away because they were too mysterious or esoteric, too profound to be read and understood by the laity. Others believe that the books deserve to be ‘hidden’ because they are simply heretical.

Beginning in the Third Century B.C., the books of the Semitic Old Testament were translated into Greek, and thus the Septuagint was formed.[3]Jews, according to Artesia’s legend, held the Septuagint to be inspired just as the Hebrew text was inspired. According to the legend, the Jews put 72 translators into two different cells to have them translate the law, finding that the translations of both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint were nearly identical.[4]

The above statements regarding the Apocrypha as being accepted by the Jews is not nearly as authoritative as many would like it to be. We have little proof text that supports this theory.

The writings of the books in the Septuagint that are not found in the Hebrew Canon (if there is to be such a thing as a Hebrew Canon) are considered to be deuterocanonical.

“Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the converted Jew and Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity was definitively confirmed by the Council of Trent, but which had been omitted from some early canons, especially in the East. Their acceptance among early Christians was not universal, but regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.”[5]

These deuterocanonical writings are different from the pseudepigraphatext in that they are regarded as part of the Canon to be read in the Church, where as the pseudigrapha texts are not to be considered part of the Canon and are not to be read in the Church.  

We do know, however, that some sort of Hebrew Canon was first initiated by the high priesthood of Simon II (219-199. B.C.).[6] These Scriptures were called by the name Torah (The law). This included, not only the Five Books of Moses, but also the works of the prophets. In approximately A.D. 90, these writings were also included within the Canon. Where they received the authority to do this is beyond my understanding, since Christ regarded the Jews as being outside of the Kingdom of God.

Christianity views the nature of Canon much different than the Jews ever did. To the Jew, it was the Law of God and the propheciesthat were “inspired.” To us Protestants, the narrative is practically on the same level as law and prophesy. We do not distinguish between Law/prophecy and narrative to be at different levels of canonicity. To the Christian, it is all The Word of God, and we therefore begin to view the Scriptures as a literal set of books, rather than a set of principles or doctrines within a set of books. This makes it very difficult at times when debating against the more fundamentalist Christians who are not educated on hermeneutics.

In 383 A.D., Bishop Damascus commissioned Jerome to make a new and more accurate translation of the Bible into Latin, which had become the language of the Western Church. Although it was questionable as to whether Jerome had the authority to do so (not being a bishop), Jerome did not exclude the books that were found in the Hebrew, but did exclude those that were found in the Septuagint. He deemed these books as the “Apocrypha.” In the medieval times, Martin Luther went a step further by regarding them to be outside of the Canon. After the Reformation, printers began excluding the Apocrypha from the Bible altogether and thus we are left with today’s modern Evangelical edition of the Bible. Modern teachers and pastors will go as far as calling the times of the Apocrypha as “the silent period.” That, in my opinion, is a serious claim considering how much went on in that period with God’s people, and especially due to the fact that the Old Testament never prophesies about a silent period.

Historical Authority of The Apocrypha

The early Gentile converts to Christianity looked to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) as their biblical authority, which contained the Apocrypha. In 2 Timothy 3:15-16, St. Paul says, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” Why didn’t Paul make any exceptions or qualifications when making this statement? Could this statement assume that the Apocrypha was a valid part of the Scriptures? Robert C. Dentan comments on the Septuagint in the early church:

When Christians of the first few centuries spoke of the Old Testament, they meant the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible…This explains a curious fact which all careful readers must have noticed. If one takes the trouble to look up a reference made by a New Testament writer to some passage in the Old Testament, in many cases he will find that our Old Testament (translated from the Hebrew) says something quite different. So, for example, Hebrews 10:5 contains a quotation from Psalm 40 which names “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” If one looks up this verse in the King James version of the Psalter (40: 6) re will find it reads ‘mine ears hast thou opened.” The same epistle relates in Ii: 21 that Jacob “worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff,” a reference to Genesis 47: 3′. But the English Old Testament states in that passage that he “bowed himself upon the bed’s head.” In both cases the author of Hebrews is quoting from the Septuagint whereas our common English translations of the Old Testament are made directly from the Hebrew.[7]

The Jews inherited the culture of the Greeks thus resulting in the translation of the Septuagint. The Septuagint not only included the Apocrypha but it was the authoritative and primary source of Scripture for both the Jews and the early Christians. 

The early church used the Apocrypha as Scripture, but from the fourth century on, fewer and fewer passages of the Apocrypha were cited from the Greek fathers, although the Latin fathers continued to quote them and even formulated them as part of the canon it the Council of Carthage with St. Augustine. 

The medieval Reformation ignited much controversy over the Apocrypha. It appears that Luther first began to reject the canonicity of the Apocrypha when his opponents began to use it to defend the doctrines of purgatory and Masses for the dead, although his 1534 German translation of the Bible contained the books of the Apocrypha (except I and II Esdras) in an appendix at the end of the Old Testament. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha in his Bible by stating, “Apocrypha - that is, books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” At the end of the Apocrypha in Luther’s Bible, it states that this is the end of the Old Testament. That’s an odd statement to make considering that he mentioned the Apocrypha as not being canonical.

The first Bible in a modern vernacular to separate the Apocrypha from the canon was the Dutch Bible published by J. Van Liesvelt in 1526. In 1537, the Thomas Matthew Bible included all of the Apocrypha books under the title “Apocrypha.” In 1560, the Geneva Bible, which was the most widely used Bible of the English until the King James Version superseded it, had also included the Apocrypha. Many printers began extracting the Apocrypha from the Geneva Bible, but had to leave the Table of Contents, which completely outlined the Apocrypha as part of its contents.

The Westminster Assembly made the following statement to be included in the actual confession:

“The books commonly called the Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are of no part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other writings” (Chapter I, section III).

Anglicans and The Apocrypha     

The 39 Articles of Religion, found in The Book of Common Prayer, also speaks of the Apocrypha much like the Westminster Confession quote above, in Article VI:

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manner; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are the following: The third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees” (Section VI).

The following are just some examples of Apocrypha content in the Book of Common Prayer. The statement in the Collect for Ash Wednesday and the 3^rd collect for Good Friday, “Who hatest nothing that Though hast made” is taken from Wisdom of Solomon (11:24). In the ‘Order of the Visitation of the Sick,’ we read Tobit 3:3. Also, many of the Psalms and Lessons in the Book of Common Prayer ask for the reading of different Apocrypha literature. Bishop Cranmer was certain that the Apocrypha was edifying to the Church, as did his spiritual forerunner, St. Augustine.

Bruce M. Metzger shows us in his book, An Introduction to the Apocrypha,that the marriage service of the BCP, issued in 1549, contains the following prayer to be recited: ‘As thou diddest sende they Aungell Raphaell to Thobie, and Sara, the daughter of Raguel, to their great comfort: so vouchsafe to sende thy blessings upon these they servants.’

The common argument for the Anglican use of the Apocrypha is that, as Article VI touches on, the Apocrypha is good for “example of life and instruction of manner,” but not for “doctrine.” Is there such a thing as “life and instruction of manner” without doctrine? Considering the fact that spiritual neutrality is utterly impossible, one would conclude that this statement needs serious modification.

Since Article VI contains such a brief and not so pervious statement, it seems almost impossible to flesh out into modern thought and apologetic. I believe Article VI teaches us that the Apocrypha has a special use for doctrine, not like that of much of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha did in fact help form orthodox doctrines, even such as the doctrine of Hell. Therefore, if we were to take the statement in Article VI at face value, we would have to do away with much of our orthodox New Testament doctrine. It’s not that the Apocrypha is worthless to doctrine; it’s that the Apocrypha has a significant place for doctrine; but as do all the books of the Bible. It is a mistake to assume that a book has to stand on its own in order to be inclusive to the Canon. If this common assumption is to be taken seriously, we would certainly not be able to include many of the books of the Canon; books such as Esther and James, which have been debated by many scholars to be questionable; and standing alone as separate books, one could become very confused as how they fit the theology of the Canon. This does not mean that the Apocrypha fits into the Canon simply because it works well when it is surrounded by the rest of the Bible, but it does mean that when it fits in with the rest of the Bible, it does what it is supposed to do, which is: to be read in the Churches, as the Article states, and to be used as, perhaps, wisdom. In other words, perhaps the Article should state that the Apocrypha cannot be used in proof-texting doctrine, but can be used for personal edification and reception of wisdom.

The Book of Common Prayer is in fact “doctrinally inclusive” to the Apocrypha in the simple fact that it often quotes it. One cannot expect to use the Apocrypha as a non-authoritative form in our worship and not expect it to inevitably form doctrine. In fact, worship itself is a doctrine of the church, and the Apocrypha has helped with this doctrine by the mere fact that it is used in our worship book. But perhaps the fact that it inadvertently creates doctrine does not mean that it explicitly creates doctrine. Is it okay for a Church document to inadvertently create doctrine -that is, create doctrine merely by it being the springboard for the Septuagint and the fact that it is read in churches and used as part of our worship - and still be considered outside of the Canon? Apparently it is okay, because the Church says it is! The Apocrypha has not been accepted by enough bishops to be established as such.

[1]Robert C. Dentan, The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments[2] R.H. Charles, Apocrypha, Introduction

[3]Robert C. Dentan, The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments, p.6

[4] ibid, p.8

[5]The Canon of Scripture, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913

[6]Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 7

[7]Robert C. Dentan, The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments, p.7