The Apocrypha: Why isn't it in Protestant Bibles?

Understanding the Apocrypha: Why Isn't It in Protestant Bibles?

The Bible, as held by Protestants, consists of 66 books—39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. However, some Bibles, particularly those used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, contain additional books, often referred to as the Apocrypha. This collection of writings, penned primarily during the intertestamental period (roughly 400 BC to AD 1), has a complex history and has been the subject of significant theological debate. For many Protestants, the question arises: "Why aren't these books in my Bible?" The answer lies in a careful examination of historical precedent, theological principles, and the consistent witness of Scripture itself.

What is the Apocrypha?

The term "Apocrypha" literally means "hidden" or "secret." These books include a variety of literary genres: historical narratives (e.g., 1 & 2 Maccabees), wisdom literature (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach), and additions to existing biblical books (e.g., additions to Esther and Daniel). Examples include Tobit, Judith, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon. While some of these books contain valuable historical insights and moral teachings, their claim to divine inspiration and canonical authority has been consistently challenged by those who adhere to the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament.

Historical Context: The Septuagint and Early Church Views

The Apocrypha gained prominence primarily through its inclusion in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was widely used by Jews in the diaspora and early Christians. This inclusion, however, did not automatically confer canonical status. The Jewish community in Palestine, from whom the Old Testament Scriptures originated, never accepted these books into their Hebrew canon. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the first century AD, clearly articulated a closed canon of 22 books (equivalent to our 39) that ended with Artaxerxes, long before the Apocrypha was written. He stated that no one "dared either to add any thing to them, or to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them."

Among early Church Fathers, there was a clear distinction between the canonical books and the Apocrypha. While some Fathers occasionally quoted from the Apocrypha for their moral value or historical information, they rarely treated them with the same authority as the undisputed Hebrew Scriptures. Influential figures like Melito of Sardis (2nd century), Origen (3rd century), and particularly Athanasius (4th century) produced lists of Old Testament books that consistently excluded the Apocrypha. Jerome, the renowned scholar who translated the Latin Vulgate in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, famously distinguished between the "Hebraica Veritas" (Hebrew Truth) and the deuterocanonical (second canon) books. He included the Apocrypha in the Vulgate but clearly marked them as not canonical, stating they were "read for edification of the people, not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." This distinction was largely maintained in Western Christianity until the Council of Trent in 1546, which, in response to the Protestant Reformation, officially declared most of the Apocrypha canonical for the Roman Catholic Church.

Theological Reasons for Protestant Exclusion

Protestants, following the Reformers, rejected the Apocrypha's canonicity based on several key theological principles:

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (with small portions in Aramaic). The Apocryphal books, in contrast, were primarily written in Greek, and no verifiable Hebrew originals exist for most of them. This immediately raises questions about their authenticity and their connection to the divinely inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

The canonical books of the Old Testament are replete with the phrase "thus saith the Lord," or clear indications of divine inspiration and prophetic utterance. The Apocryphal books, however, lack this internal witness. Some authors even acknowledge that they are not divinely inspired. For instance, the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) speaks of the author's own diligent study, rather than direct revelation. Furthermore, 1 Maccabees 9:27 laments the absence of a prophet in Israel during its time, indicating a recognition that the prophetic voice had ceased, a period during which the Apocrypha was written.

While some moral teachings in the Apocrypha are commendable, certain passages contain doctrines and practices that contradict or are inconsistent with the teaching of the undisputed Old and New Testaments. Examples include:

• Salvation by works: Tobit 12:9 states, "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin." This contradicts the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9.
• Prayer for the dead: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 describes Judas Maccabeus offering sacrifices for the dead, which is a practice not supported elsewhere in Scripture and contradicts the finality of one's spiritual state at death.
• Magical elements: Tobit contains superstitious and magical practices, such as using fish organs to drive away demons (Tobit 6:1-18, Tobit 8:1-3). Such practices are condemned in the canonical Scriptures (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

The Bible warns against adding to or taking away from God's Word:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 4:2

And in the New Testament:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19

While these verses specifically refer to their respective contexts, they establish a principle of the divine preservation and completeness of God's revealed Word.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for Protestants is the silence of the New Testament. Jesus and the apostles quoted extensively from almost every book of the Old Testament, treating them as divinely authoritative. Over 250 direct quotations and numerous allusions to the Old Testament are found in the New Testament. However, neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament authors ever quote from the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, nor do they allude to it in a way that suggests canonical status. This absence is highly significant, as the New Testament authors frequently appealed to the Old Testament to confirm their teachings and the identity of Christ.

The Apostle Paul states in Romans 3:1-2, "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." The Jewish people were the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures. Their established canon, universally recognized by the time of Christ, did not include the Apocrypha. This historical reality strongly influences the Protestant view that God entrusted His Old Testament Word to the Jews, and their acceptance (or rejection) of certain books is a crucial testimony to their canonicity.

The Reformation's Stance

The Protestant Reformation, with its rallying cry of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), rigorously examined the biblical canon. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin reaffirmed the ancient Hebrew canon, setting aside the Apocrypha. They argued that only those books which bore the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, were consistent with the rest of Scripture, and had been accepted by the Jewish people and the earliest Church as divinely inspired, should be considered canonical. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a foundational document for many Protestant denominations, articulates this position clearly:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 3

While the Apocrypha may be read for historical or moral insight, Protestants do not consider them to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, nor do they use them to establish doctrine.

Conclusion

The absence of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles is not an arbitrary decision but the result of centuries of theological discernment and historical analysis. It stems from a commitment to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which upholds the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the complete and authoritative Word of God. The reasons are multifaceted: the lack of Hebrew originals, the absence of internal claims to prophetic authority, the presence of doctrinal inconsistencies, the silence of Christ and the apostles regarding their canonicity, and the consistent witness of the Jewish people concerning their own sacred texts. For Protestants, the Bible, as it stands with its 66 books, is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, being "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).