Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible

The Apocrypha and the Old Testament Canon

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scripture. The dispute between them is among seven books, part of which are known as the Apocrypha, First and Second Maccabees, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.

However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the canon of Scripture or standard writings of the Old Testament. First of all, and this is, I think, the stronger evidence, is the fact that these writings were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles.

No New Testament Citation of the Apocrypha as Scripture

First, there are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the Apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like, thus says the Lord, or as it is written, or even the Scriptures say.

There are references in the New Testament to the Pseudepigrapha, which are known as the false writings. This occurs in Jude 14 -15, for example, which references the Book of Enoch, and even citations from pagan sources, which Paul does in Acts 17.

But none of these are cited as Scripture, and both of them are even rejected by Roman Catholics as authoritative. The Catholics don't accept the Book of Enoch, and they don't accept the references that Paul made to pagan poets and philosophers.

In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times. For example, look at Matthew 5. Look at the whole Gospel of Matthew. In fact, if you just read the entire New Testament, you'll see that there are tons of quotations or allusions to Old Testament texts.

And they use phrases, which is key, such as, thus says the Lord, as it is written, or the Scriptures say. These references and phrases indicate that they view these texts as clearly having authority. Second, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha of Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish canon of Scripture.

He says, quote, From the blood of Abel, which is a reference to Genesis 4 -8, to the blood of Zechariah, which is a reference to 2 Chronicles, who was killed between the altar and the house of God, yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.

That's found in Luke 11 -51. You can also look at Matthew 23 -35, which has the same basic wording. So what is Jesus doing in this passage? Well, Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.

In Hebrew canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. Their Hebrew Bible is basically known as the Tanakh. They contained all the same books as the standard 39 books, which were accepted by the Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.

For example, all the 12 minor prophets, Hosea through Malachi, were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zechariah, he was canvassing the entire canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.

Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Some people reply and say, well, there was no canon of Scripture that time period. Okay, if there's no official list, that's fine. But Jesus is still making an analogy, he's making a parallel, he's drawing on something.

By referring to Abel and Zechariah, he's referring to the first and the last of a series of writings. That's exactly what we have in the Tanakh today. So Jesus had some sort of list of authoritative scriptures that he at least viewed as having authority.

There's no indication that he viewed the Apocrypha as part of that authoritative writings. Those two reasons, I think, are the stronger reasons for the Apocrypha not being Scripture. We also have other reasons.

Jewish Rejection, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Ancient Witnesses

The third reason is the fact that they were basically rejected by the Jewish community. We see this from a couple of different instances. So third, you could divide it this way, basically the oracles of God were delivered to the Jews.

This is found in Romans chapter 3, verse 2, where Paul states it. And since the Jews rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as inspired revelation, it would seem that the Apocrypha should not be Scripture.

Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but he never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation with God. So Jesus never debated with the Pharisees regarding which book should be in the Septic Scripture.

They worked with the same text. Fourth, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide no commentaries on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Old Testament Jewish books, at least one. Again, there's one reference to some authoritative book in the Tanakh.

So this probably indicates that the Jewish Eshting community at least did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books. Again, that's not necessarily conclusive, but again, we don't have a commentary from the Qumran community regarding these Apocrypha books that have commentaries on the Apocrypha books.

Fifth, many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. For example, Philo of Alexandria never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus, in fact, explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew canon as basically 22 books.

Again, it could be 22 or 24, depending on how you divided things up. In fact, the Jewish community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written. Other reasons are the fact that many, even in the Catholic Church or the Church of the time period, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

The Catholic Church, the Church Fathers, and the Historical Placement of the Apocrypha

Sixth, the Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.

This was over a millennium and a half after the books were written and was a counter-reaction in some ways to the Protestant Reformation. Again, there were probably more people before then who accepted it as Scripture, but it wasn't officially accepted at a universal council until then.

Seventh, many Church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it.

In fact, most of the Church Fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius. So there is no universal consent among Church Fathers that the Apocrypha was Scripture.

If anything, it was hotly contested and it was debated among these various theologians. Eighth, the Apocrypha books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were often placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority.

The Apocrypha rightly does have some devotional purposes and does have historical values. For example, in Maccabees, it does describe the intertestamental period between the Old and New Testaments. But these writings are not Scripture, they are not inspired.

False Teachings and the Lack of Prophetic Marks

Ninth, the Apocrypha also contains false teachings. You can look at another reference on Qarm for more details, but for example, there is the command to use magic found in Tobit. There is forgiveness of sins by almsgiving, as found in Tobit 4 .11 and Tobit 12 .9.

And also, there is the offering of money for the sins of the dead, as found in 2 Maccabees 12 .43. The final reason why the Apocrypha should not be accepted as Scripture is the fact that they are not prophetic.

The Apocrypha books do not share many of the characteristics of the canonical books. For example, they are not really prophetic. There is no supernatural confirmation of any of the Apocrypha writers' works.

There is really no specific predictive prophecies, other than maybe something in Wisdom of Solomon that may have reference to other stuff. There is really no new messianic truth revealed. They are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them.

And they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time. You can see that in 1 Maccabees 9 .27 and 14 .41. So cumulatively speaking, you may not even agree with all the 10 reasons I give for the Apocrypha not being Scripture.

I think the first two reasons I gave are the strongest ones. You may debate the exact minutiae of all my arguments, but cumulatively speaking, there is no compelling evidence to accept the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Jesus again never explicitly quotes from it as authoritative, nor do any of the Apostles. Therefore, I see no reason why we should have the Apocrypha in the Old Testament Scriptures.