Some translations of the Bible include in the Old Testament a collection of books called the Apocrypha, which are not in other translations. Generally speaking, these books appear in Bibles used by Roman Catholics but not by Protestants.
The Church of England’s official doctrinal standard, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, refer to them as “the other books” in Article 6.
The text below seeks to explain the confusing background of the Apocrypha, to explain its usefulness for believers today, and to outline the content of the books.
1. Background and History
The traditional story goes that in about 250BC the King of Egypt wanted to include the Hebrew Scriptures in his magnificent library in Alexandria so he commissioned seventy-two Jewish scholars to make a translation into Greek. This Greek Bible is therefore known as the Septuagint, which means “seventy” and often referred to by the Roman numerals LXX. The Apocrypha is made up of some books that are in the Septuagint but are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures as they were in Jesus’ day along with longer versions of two books which were in the Bible in Jesus’ time. A list of the books is given in part 3.
Many today disagree with the traditional explanation for various reasons but the basic fact is that this Greek translation of the Old Testament is different in various ways to the Hebrew Scriptures and in particular because it includes what is now known as the Apocrypha. Some early Christians said that the Jews had removed the books from their Scriptures but there doesn’t seem any clear evidence for this.
Jews in places like Alexandria (where it is estimated that 100,000 such lived) often did not know Hebrew so they used Greek. So too when the early Christians took the gospel message beyond Israel to the Gentiles (non-Jews) they would often be speaking Greek and so often naturally turned to the Septuagint translation. Indeed in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, some, though not all, of the many quotes from the Old Testament use the same wording as the Septuagint translation.
Before long the Church was predominantly Greek (and Latin) in its focus and few of its leaders knew Hebrew. Bibles would have been relatively scarce but what they used for the Old Testament was the Septuagint and as time went on many simply assumed that it was the authentic Old Testament.
Matters are complicated further because these books are not only referred to as ‘the Apocrypha’ but also ‘the books ecclsiastical’, ‘the deutero-canonical books‘ and ‘the other books’. Whereas the word ‘apocrypha’ is used to describe various other books which today are more likely to be referred to as ‘pseudepigraphal books” because they claim to be written by famous people in the Bible but were not, or if they were have never been counted as part of Scripture.
1.1 Were the apocryphal books part of the Hebrew Bible?
In his extensive work “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church” Roger Beckwith concludes that there is “no significant evidence” that these books were in the Bible of Jesus’ day and “considerable evidence to the contrary” (p386). It is clear that many early church leaders, particularly those who knew Hebrew, were well aware that the apocryphal books were not part of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless some, more so in the West than the East, seem to have been unaware of this fact, whilst others who did know argued that the Jews had deliberately removed the extra books from their Bible because they supported Christian claims. Some refused point blank to accept the evidence of what the Jews had in their Scriptures, because they believed them to be blasphemers and untrustworthy, whilst others insisted that because the Church treated the apocryphal works as Scripture then they were Scripture.
The Jews of this period appear to have been well aware of the apocryphal books and it has become clear that many of the books were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless the Jews argued that these books were not part of the canonical Scriptures because by the time they were written the Spirit of prophecy had left Israel so they could not be divinely inspired.
The confused attitude of Christians to the Apocrypha is well illustrated by Origen. He was a Hebrew scholar and he consulted with Jewish scholars. He accepted the view set out by many other early church writers that the canonical Hebrew Scriptures consisted of what we have in our Old Testament today. Nevertheless Origen quoted freely from the apocryphal books as if they were Scripture and defended some of them against others. Cyril of Jerusalem, by contrast, told people to have nothing to do with the Apocrypha because it was not Scripture, whilst he himself did read it and quoted from it on occasion.
The mature view of the early church leaders is found in Jerome. He also was a Hebrew scholar when that was a rarity in the Latin West. The Church of England’s Article 6 actually quotes Jerome, who did not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture and did he include it in his Latin translation of the Old Testament. He was strongly criticized for this and eventually the Apocrypha was included in what is known as the Latin Vulgate, which was based on Jerome’s work and which became the standard translation in western Europe for a thousand years.
What has not been mentioned so far is the evidence of the New Testament. The NT both shows us what the very earliest Christians thought but also, being the Word of God is our supreme authority on all such matters. Is Jerome’s view, quoted in our Articles, consistent with the New Testament? It has already been remarked that when quoting Scripture some NT writers appear to have used the Septuagint, so they were familiar with that translation, yet there is no instance in the New Testament where any parts of the Apocrypha are quoted. However, there is at least one place (Heb 11.35) where the people whose lives are given as an example to us are found in the Apocrypha (2 Macc 6.18-7.14). In other places moral instruction is given which is remarkably similar to sayings in Wisdom or Sirach, but noticeably these are not given as straight quotation. Thus it seems that the New Testament itself models what Jerome and our Articles assert, that these books are not Scripture, but they do provide example of life and instruction in manners.
1.2 Reformation
In the immediate aftermath of the Reformation, in this as in so many other areas, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent made things much worse. The Council issued a list of Canonical Books and declared that the Latin Vulgate was the standard text. Thus some of the parts of the Apocrypha (additions to Daniel and Esther) are included with the main text and the other books are listed by name. Moreover, they declared it anathema to disagree with them. It is somewhat absurd that this gathering, given so much authority and weight in Roman-Catholicism, could in one breath canonise the Latin Vulgate which derives from the work of Jerome, and then declare Jerome’s own views to be anathema. G.R.Snaith in the introduction to the Commentary on the Apocrypha writes that the decision of Trent “was ratified by 53 prelates among whom there was not one scholar distinguished by historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity.” (p.xxxii)
The decision of Trent is an embarrassment to some Roman-Catholic scholars who are well aware that it was wrong. Indeed the Apocrypha is often referred to as the ‘Deutero-canonical’ books, indicating that they were included in the canon second, rather than they have a second rate authority. Nevertheless there are still those who argue for the decision taken by Trent and in large part this is because of the support lent by the Apocrypha to some Roman teaching such as prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12.44). By the
same token, Protestants have subsequently distrusted the Apocrypha partly because of these texts.
Our articles evidence that the first wave of protestants took the same view as the more sober and learned of the Church fathers, that the Apocrypha is not Scripture but has its place. Luther put the Apocrypha in an appendix (he was not the first to do this though) and the same was done with the Geneva Bible and Authorised King James Version of 1611. The Prayer Book lectionary provided for it to be read in Church, but only on weekdays, and one or two saint’s days. Attempts were made to change both these positions during the 1600s and the Westminster Confession made it clear that the authority of the Apocrypha is no greater than any other human writing. Precisely when the Apocrypha began to drop out of English Bibles completely I am not sure but it appears to have been in the early 1800s.
The inclusion of these “other books” in the Greek Bible ensured that they were not lost, which is no bad thing, but also caused people to use them and treat them as Scripture, which they are not. Within Protestantism we have now come full-circle, the books are no longer in our Bibles but they are also now largely unknown, which is a shame, as we will see in a following article.
2. Its Use
Does the Apocrypha have any value for today? If so, what is that value? The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England cite the observation of Jerome that “other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners”. This could be taken simply as an observation of prevailing practice and since it is largely untrue today within the protestant Churches then perhaps the time has come to admit that the Apocrypha has no such value. Nevertheless, Article 6 is not simply describing existing practice, as an Article of Religion it is really commending this for continuing practice. But before we consider this more fully it is worth noting the value of the Apocrypha not mentioned by the Article.
2.1 Common value
Some books of the Apocrypha have a general worth as historical record. First Maccabees is highly regarded in this respect, it provides quite a detailed account of a brief period of Israel’s history. Even some of the non-history
books have value both in terms of ancient literature and because they do shed some light on historical matters. Together they fill in some of the gaps between the events described in the Old and New Testaments. These things could be said of other ancient books and there are more modern and readable histories. Nevertheless they have a valuable as history not least because they do not fear to see God’s hand in events.
2.2 Particular value
Of more particular value is the fact that the Apocrypha does help us to understand some of the things we find in the New Testament. An example often quoted is the evolution of the idea of eternal life. The idea of such an evolution is clearly erroneous since we have the authority of the Lord Jesus that eternal life is clearly taught in the Old Testament Scriptures (Mtt 22.29ff). Nevertheless it does appear that the appreciation of this truth grew over time in the Israelites and by the time of the Apocrypha it is more obviously articulated than in the Old Testament. This should not be overplayed though, because the Sadducees still managed to get it wrong.
We can also see particular value in these books precisely because they have been so widely used by the Christian Church. Anyone wishing to read the writings of the early church will sooner or later find references to the Apocrypha, and plenty of them. The same can be said of medieval and early protestant theologians. Thus the Apocrypha is part of our Christian heritage, and understanding what it says gives us a greater appreciation of that heritage and of some of the divisions and controversies that have arisen. It also helps to appreciate the significance of the Benedicite (Song of the Three) in Christian worship.
On the basis of the above there are good grounds for saying that Christians, especially those who teach, should be familiar with the Apocrypha. However, Jerome and Article 6 commend the Apocrypha for other reasons.
2.3 Doctrinal value
The Article and Jerome state explicitly that the Church “doth not apply them to establish any doctrine”. It could be argued that they have some value where they illustrate or support doctrine clearly taught elsewhere but as the Articles indicate they should not be used to establish doctrine and in general this means that if the Apocryphal books have to be appealed for primary references then there is something wrong with the doctrine in question.
2.4 Morals and Manners
What then of the assertion in the Articles about example of life and instruction in morals? We can see this in part in Hebrews 11, the heroes of the faith. They are all commended for their faith, but some are not to be found in the Old Testament. In fact in 11.35 reference is made to people who are not in Scripture but who are mentioned in the Apocrypha and in particular in 2 Macc 6.18-7.14. This does not mean that the author is referencing 2 Maccabees, merely that he was aware of the events that are also recorded there. Here we have an example, though admittedly only one, where Jerome’s principle can be seen at work in the New Testament itself. If we wish to learn more of these heroes of the faith, then our easiest source is 2 Maccabees, so it does provide us with example of life.
Our problem arises when we find things in the Apocrypha which are unhelpful, or just plain wrong. The classic example of this is also in 2 Maccabees, this time chapter 12. Judas Maccabeus led the Jews in battle against the Idumeans. After the fight (and the Sabbath) the bodies of the dead Jews were collected for burial. But each of those who died were found to be wearing idolatrous tokens. The people were scandalised but recognised the judgement of God. Judas took a collection and prayed and ‘made an atonement for the dead so that they might be delivered from their sin.’ This text has been used to support intercession for and the saying of masses for the dead and is in no small part responsible for protestant mistrust of the Apocrypha. If this is historically accurate then we have to conclude that Judas was wrong in what he did and his example of life is not one we should follow. We come to this conviction because there is nothing in Scripture to support what he did and much to indicate that it was wrong.
Therefore, we can see that there are clear limits to the use of the Apocrypha. Where we find practices which are not in accord with the rest of Scripture we should not follow this example. This immediately means that the Apocrypha is not something we should commend to young Christians, since they may find it difficult to discern the helpful from the unhelpful.
It might also be reasonably asked, if we have to be on our guard with the Apocrypha in this way wouldn’t it be better to stick simply to Scripture. The answer to this is in two parts. First, Christians have never taken this view in general terms. I doubt that I am alone in having commended in preaching and teaching the lives of those who have gone before. If we are able to commend the example of Athanasius or Luther, Thomas Cranmer or Hudson-Taylor, what is wrong in commending the example of Tobit or Susanna? Not everything our heroes did was right, indeed sometimes it is their failures that are instructive. Secondly, we have the same dilemma in Scripture, which is full of people who are fallen and fallible like us. When we read of Samson marrying a prostitute or David committing adultery we know that there actions are not examples for us to follow. Thus even within the canon of Scripture we have to show care in the lessons we draw.
Therefore, despite some of the unpalatable parts, I can see no reason for dissenting from the view of Jerome and our Articles that there is merit in reading the Apocrypha for example of life and instruction of manners, so long as we remember that it is not Scripture and that it must be submitted to Scripture.
2.5 What should we do with the Apocrypha? Should we read it in our Churches?
There is more encouragement to do this today than at any time since the Reformation because Common Worship lectionary, based as it is on ecumenical practice, includes many occasions when the Apocrypha can optionally be read in Sunday worship. This is in spite of the fact that until the 20th Century changes to the Lectionary had reduced the reading of the Apocrypha considerably. Despite the modern provision I cannot see that we should read the Apocrypha in our Churches except by way of background or illustration to a sermon, or in the such instances as the Benedicite. It is far more profitable to make sure that Scripture is read instead because that is the Word of God. Moreover there is a danger, when there is so little Biblical literacy, that people will gain the wrong impression of the Apocrypha.
2.6 Should we read it in private?
As indicated above I believe that there are good reasons why we should read it in private. It will help in understanding Scripture and some of the courageous examples are a great inspiration. It may be that there are other works which can perform similar functions but the Apocrypha has a particular call on our attention because of its use by Christians through the ages.
2.7 Should we include it in our Bibles?
No, I do not think this wise. On the one hand I suspect that if these books had not been included in Bibles then some of them would have been lost like many other ancient works. Nevertheless our survey of the history of the Apocrypha showed that its inclusion in the Bible caused people over time to view it as Scripture. The decision not to include these books in protestant Bibles has ensured that they have not been misused or abused within protestant Churches.
If they are to be read in private but not included in our Bibles then the obvious solution is that they should be printed in a separate book. It seems to me that there would be value in doing this and in giving a bit of historical background together with a brief introduction and a few helpful notes for each book. To the best of my knowledge no such book exists but it would ensure that a valuable asset is not lost whilst also ensuring that it is not treated in a way that cannot be justified.
3. Overview of the Books
The order and names are those given in our Articles followed in parenthesis by other names by which they are sometimes known.
The Third Book of Esdras (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras)
Esdras is the Latin for Ezra and the 9 chapters of the book consist mostly of regurgitation of parts of 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. The one unique part (3.1-5.6) contains an account of how Zerubabel persuaded King Darius to allow the exiles to return and rebuild the city and temple and take the items looted by Cyrus.
The Fourth Book of Esdras (3 Esdras)
This book consists of seven visions given to Ezra whilst he was in Babylon. It has similarities to the book of Daniel and is sometimes called ‘The Apocalypse’ of Ezra.
These two books are in the Latin Vulgate but not counted as canonical Scripture by Rome. They are called 3&4 Esdras, whilst 1&2 Esdras are Ezra & Nehemiah. The Greek has only 1 Esdras, and the Slavonic calls them 2 & 3 Esdras (combining Ezra & Nehemiah as 1 Esdras).
The Book of Tobias (Tobit)
Tobit was a member of the tribe of Naphtali who was taken as a captive to Nineveh when the Assyrians destroyed the northern tribes of Israel. The book recounts his life in exile including his romance with Sarah, another exile. It appears to have been written in at least 150BC in Hebrew or Aramaic. There are two quotations from Tobit in the BCP Communion service (the verses before the offertory) and the book has more ethical and moral example than most.
The Book of Judith
Judith was a widow in the city Behulia when it was besieged by the Assyrians. After atrocities were committed by the conquerors Judith assassinated their leader Holofernes. Judith appears to be another old book, written in Hebrew or Aramaic but usually considered to be historical fiction.
The rest of the Book of Esther (Additions to Esther)
The canonical book of Esther cries out at every turn to mention the LORD but never does. This feature drives home the reality of the exile – the people of God seem separated from God, and yet His hand of providence is always at work. In the Greek and Latin texts there are three extra sections most of which appear intended to provide what is deemed lacking in the canonical text but therefore destroy something of the character of the original. This does not mean the other incidents were not genuine, it is just that Scripture was written as it is for a purpose.
The Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon)
Wisdom consists of sayings akin to Proverbs and parts of Ecclesiastes. Whilst the book is not quoted in the New Testament there are a number of instances of very similar ideas. For example compare Romans 1.20ff with Wis. 13:1,8 For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists .... Yet again, not even they are to be excused; The book is reckoned to show how Jewish understanding of the Old Testament was developing in preparation for the coming of Christ. It is well written in Greek whilst showing familiarity with Hebrew style. Though the title seems to imply association with Solomon the text itself does not claim this directly.
Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus or Sirach)
The Joshua (Jesus) of the title wrote down some of the sayings of his father Sirach, fifty one chapters of them and a prologue. It has been widely used by Christians through the ages and earned the name ‘ecclesiasticus’ because it was widely read in the early Church. It is an ancient book, written in Hebrew or Aramaic and was apparently well known by pre-Christian sources too. There are a number of places where verses in the New Testament are similar to those in Sirach, but no actual quotation. It seems most likely that some of the sayings were in common currency at that time. Compare James 1.19 with Sir 5:1 Be quick to hear, but deliberate in answering.
Baruch the Prophet
Baruch was one of the exiles, and a friend of Jeremiah. There are four distinct parts and some consider that these had separate origins not least because of differences in style. The first part is an exhortation to the exiles in the light of the judgement of God. The second is a praise of Wisdom and was seen by many church fathers as a direct prophecy of Christ. The third part is a lament followed by further exhortation. The fourth part, chapter six, is a letter from Jeremiah to the exiles and is often cited a separate book in the Apocrypha called, not surprisingly ‘The Letter of Jeremiah’.
Additions to the Book of Daniel
The next three books in the Apocrypha are additions to the canonical book of Daniel and, like the additions to Esther, they are included in the main text in most Greek and Latin Bibles though not in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Song of the Three Children (Azariah)
This consists of two parts both of which are inserted between verse 23 and 24 of Daniel chapter 3. First is a Prayer of Azariah (Abednego) after he and his friends survived the fiery furnace. Second is the Song of the Three in which they praise God for their deliverance. This is better known to us as Benedicite, Omnia Opera one of the Canticles for Morning Prayer. (A version of this can also be found in the more modern Psalm Praise under the title “Angels praise Him!”.)
The Story of Susanna
Susanna was a beautiful, god-fearing and married woman blackmailed by two Jewish elders. They gave her the choice of committing adultery with them or they would accuse her publicly of adultery. Susanna chose purity and to trust in God but was convicted and condemned to death. The Lord spoke to the young Daniel who quickly re-called the court and exposed the deceit through his questioning with the result that Susanna was saved and her accusers executed. Susanna is a clear example of faithfulness and purity and the name Susan appears to take its origin and popularity from the book. This is chapter 13 in the Septuagint version of Daniel.
Of Bel and the Dragon
Bel was a statue who was not only worshipped by the Babylonians but also ate their offerings. Daniel ridiculed this (no doubt he would have been convicted of religious hatred today) and in a test conducted by the King caught the priests and their families red handed as they stole the food away. The dragon was also worshipped as a god and this time Daniel demonstrated that it was only flesh and blood by poisoning it. For this he was cast to the lions at which point there is a peculiar guest appearance by the prophet Habakkuk transported there by an Angel and Daniel is kept secure.
These two stories are old and were well known in the pre-Christian era. They form chapter 14 of Daniel in the Septuagint.
The Prayer of Manasses
This eloquent prayer asserts to be that mentioned in 2 Chronicles 23.18, a penitential prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah. It was used in the Churches and is in the appendix to Latin Bibles, but is not held canonical by Roman Catholics.
The First Book of Maccabees
This book contains a long and detailed account of the Maccaebean revolt from roughly 175BC to 134BC. During this time Judea was under constant threat and persecution and the Maccabees, in particular Judas Maccabeus, spearheaded the Jewish resistance. The book was written in Hebrew not long after the events it describes and is generally held in high regard as a piece of history.
The Second Book of Maccabees
This is less highly regarded as history but its two parts do apparently given more details of the Maccabean period. The book was popular with early Christians because of its accounts of martyrdoms which are alluded to in Hebrews 11.35. Unlike the canonical scriptures this one book supports the idea of prayer for the dead.
There are two other books of the Maccabees which do not appear in the Latin Vulgate although 3 Maccabees was included in the Greek Apocrypha and 4 Maccabees as an appendix.
David Phillips. Originally written for use in Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102, whilst I was General Secretary of Church Society where we stated that may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.