Leugen Kringledorf | April 14th, 2023
The Bibles used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches have an interesting twist to them; there are extra books and/or chapters of books not found in other traditions. Commonly, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians refer to these books and chapters as “deuterocanonical,” but Christians who do not accept them might know them as "apocryphal" or “the Apocrypha.” There has been a long historical debate over whether the Apocrypha ought to be considered in Canon. Nevertheless, there is good reason to question the validity of the Apocrypha as scripture. This article will examine the historical record of the apocryphal works found within Roman Catholic Bibles.
For background purposes, the Apocrypha, or "the hidden Books" is a collection of books said to have been written within the "400 years of silence". This period refers to the time roughly between 500 B.C. and the birth of Christ during which God did not raise up any new prophets. There are seven main books within the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach or Ben Sirach), and Baruch. The content of the books varies with some being considered books of wisdom like Proverbs, biblical novellas like Esther, or prophetical like Isaiah, Jonah, and Daniel. These books are not considered a part of the New Testament but are usually either blended into the Old Testament or set in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments.
The Councils at Hippo and Carthage were the first councils to endorse the Apocrypha as canonical, and both councils are used by Roman Catholic apologists to support the inclusion of the Apocrypha as these councils represented “the general belief of the universal Church.”1 If it is true that these councils expressed the general approval of the Apocrypha, then why was there another official approval nearly a millennium later by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D? The Council of Trent provided a list of which books were to be considered scripture in the Old and New Testaments, which included the Apocrypha. The basis for the Council's determination of scripture is as follows:
“(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.”2
However, if the councils at Hippo and Carthage had established the general belief of the Church and this belief was passed down in continuous succession, why was there a need for a third approval? The existence of a third approval over a thousand years later suggests that the canonicity of the Apocrypha was not accepted generally by the Church and that between the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and the Council of Trent, there was debate over the inclusion of apocryphal works as canonical.
It does not appear that the Church held unanimously the Apocrypha as scripture. In fact, many leaders in the early Church were well aware of the existence of the Apocrypha along with other apocryphal works and wrote against any likening of these books as scripture.
The Festal Letter of Athanasius, written in 367, is without a doubt one of the more convincing early church documents that show the exclusion of the Apocrypha as scripture. In the letter, Athanasius first explains his intention in writing is to rally against any works of heretics.
“But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books — those called apocryphal — led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church…. ; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.”3
Athanasius and others at the time were well aware that other books were being written/being considered scripture and sought to delineate these “apocryphal” books from “Divine Scripture.” Athanasius was also “urged… by true brethren” to undertake this Festal letter, indicating that he was speaking on the behalf of more than just himself. This is important because it lends support to the idea that Athanasius was speaking more out of a general consensus in the Church rather than out of his own canonical framework.
The true importance of Athanasius’ letter comes from his inclusion of a list of Old and New Testament books considered scripture. Athanasius defines the Old and New Testaments as follows:
“There are…of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews. Their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterward, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament… Again, it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterward, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.”4
There is no mention of any books from the Apocrypha as canon in Athanasius’ list. In fact, it is clear from Athanasius’ letter that the Church was aware of some of the books of the Apocrypha and that they were not considered canonical but rather useful for “instruction in the word of godliness.”5Athanasius writes,
“But for greater exactness, I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these 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. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.”6
So, according to Athanasius, most of the books found in the Apocrypha were not considered canonical. These books were merely to be read by those new to the Church to help them in their faith, and just like modern books today, these other works were not used to pull or form doctrine; that is the job of scripture. But there are two other important points to understand from Athanasius’ letter.
First, not all the books of the Apocrypha are even included in the books useful for teaching. While books such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit are found in Athanasius’ list, other books such as 1st and 2nd Maccabees are not.
Second, books outside any of the ones listed by Athanasius were considered “inventions of heretics,” designed to “lead astray the simple.” This would include the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees. Therefore, to Athanasius and others in the Church at the time, some of the books Rome touts as canon are rather mere attempts of heretics to confuse the Church.
Now, admittedly, Athanasius’ letter represents one ancient work, and his position on scripture may have been local and unrepresentative of the position of the Church as a whole. Unless other key members of the Church held a similar position, then it is not possible to conclude that Athanasius' view was popular. However, many members of the Church during the fourth century had come to accept that the Apocrypha was not scripture. For instance, in the Eastern Church, many prominent Christians began to either reject outright the Apocrypha as canonical or relegate it to a lesser status. J.N.D. Kelly’s explanation of this is quite adequate.
“The view which now commended itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus11 and Epiphanius, was that the deuterocanonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper. Cyril was quite uncompromising; books not in the public canon were not to be studied even in private. Athanasius displayed greater flexibility, ruling that they might be used by catechumens for the purpose of instruction…This official reserve… persisted for long in the East. As late as the eighth century we find John Damascene maintaining the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books and excluding Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, although he was ready to acknowledge their admirable qualities.”7
But this view was not only maintained in the Eastern Church. In fact, famous members of the Western Church, such as Jerome and Hilary of Poitiers, are found expressing the same conclusion about the Apocrypha.
“… Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as 'not canonical, but ecclesiastical', i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. Jerome, too, influenced by his long residence in Palestine as well as by purely scholarly considerations, declared about 391 that anything not in the Hebrew was 'to be classed among the Apocrypha', and did not belong to the canon; somewhat later, in 398, he conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine.”8
The dissension of prominent members of the Church shows it is not possible to conclude the general acceptance of the Apocrypha. But if many were opposed, why is there any debate? The debate originates from the inclusion of apocryphal works within the original Greek translation of the Old Testament known as "the Septuagint". Roman Catholic apologists argue that because the Apocrypha is found within the Septuagint and because the Septuagint was one of the primary translations of scripture used by early Christians, the Apocrypha must be considered inspired by God.9 However, there is a big problem with this line of reasoning. As E. Earle Ellis explains,
"The Septuagint originally referred to a Greek version of the Pentateuch translated... in the third century B.C. ... However, the same name and origin came to be ascribed to the Greek version of the rest of the Hebrew canonical books that by 132 B.C. also existed on Greek scrolls... Later the name was applied to certain other Jewish religious writings that originated or were translated in Greek."10
So, which version of the Septuagint should we reference? There is not just one ancient book deemed to be the Septuagint; in fact, there are quite many. Furthermore, we know that the various versions of the Septuagint known to exist contain books that are not considered scripture by any major tradition. For instance, the Codex Sinaiticus includes in the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Codex Alexandrinus includes in the New Testament 1st and 2nd Clement. If we follow the logic of certain apologists, then all these books should be considered scripture due to their inclusion with the rest of the Bible. Moreover, there is no uniformity in the apocryphal works included in Septuagint codices.
"No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint 'Bible' was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church... Nevertheless, unknowledgeable persons tended to give equal authority to all books used in the church, books that varied from time to time and place to place and that included both apocryphal and other, sometimes heretical books. They were probably confirmed within one or a few codices and tended to equate the resulting volumes with the canonical Bible."11
Therefore, the use of books outside the standard Church Canon does not result in the attribution of scripture. Otherwise, there are plenty of other apocryphal or heretical works that would need to be considered canonical. Because of this, it is better to side with the historical opinion of the Jews, for Christ did not tell the Sadducees "You are mistaken because you do not have all the scripture". Jesus said, "You are mistaken because you do not know all the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matt. 22:29).
1 “How to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’).” Dave Armstrong. National Catholic Register. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanon-or-apocrypha
2 Council of Trent, Fourth Session
3 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Translated by R. Payne-Smith. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.
4 Lost Scriptures. 339, Bart D. Ehrman. 2003. Kindle Edition. *It is important to mention that Athanasius did not include Esther in the Old Testament Canon.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Early Christian Doctrines. 54-55, Fourth Edition. 1968. J.N.D. Kelly.
8 Ibid.
9 “Defending the Deuterocanonicals." James Akin. EWTN Global Catholic Television. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/defending-the-deuterocanonicals-996
10 The Old Testament in Early Christianity. 34. 1991. E. Earle Ellis.
11 Ibid. 34-35.