Why are you reading the Apocrypha?

To give you some background on myself before I start; I am a graduate of Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary(LUBTS). My master’s is in Biblical Studies. I have dedicated my entire life since becoming a Christian at age 9 to study of the Bible. Before I took my first Biblical Hebrew graduate class, I was reading the Dead Sea Scrolls without help as they hung in the Discovery Place in Charlotte, NC. Growing up Southern Baptist, I was lucky in that my parents allowed me to attend various churches as a child, I have worshiped with my friends at the local Catholic church, I have been in pentecostal churches, holiness churches, I’ve worshiped with Jews (Conservative and Messianic), and Episcopalians. I was raised Southern Baptist, but as an adult, I found myself in the Presbyterian church, and am currently a United Methodist lay speaker. While in seminary, when my professors had me sum up the Bible, I included the Apocrypha, when questioned about it, I answered “Why not, it’s a part of the Greek Septuagint.” My professors couldn’t tell me “No.” And I retained high marks at LUBTS. So I am not  a fly by night, let me look at Google University and see if I can find a position that will support my view solely. Matter of fact, I love to read and write and I love to talk to people about my findings.

Over the past few weeks, well-meaning friends have shared their worry with me as I have made various posts from the Apocrypha. While I can understand their “fear” that I am falling into apostasy, I am curious, that if they have never spent time with the Apocrypha why they are being so judgmental towards them. When I post something that "touches my  heart" it's not uncommon for several people to comment that I need "put quotes around it so that people will know it doesn't come from the real Bible." Yet it does come from the Bible, it comes however, from works that are considered secondary from the Canon--meaning they are to be used for private study; but while I may not use them in my preaching...if I had never read the Apocrypha, I would not understand the inter-testamental period or what life was like for Jews living after the Old Testament ended and before the New Testament was recorded.

Many are so because of Deuteronomy 4:2 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. And Revelation 22:18-19 18 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: 19 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. While I an appreciate their “understanding” of these verses, I find it odd that many will say “It’s not in the King James Version (KJV) so it’s not a part of the Bible.” However, this just isn’t the truth.

As I write this post, I will use some terms that you will need to remember:

• Tanakh - The original Hebrew scripture, comprising the Torah, the Prophets (Historical books and Prophetic books), and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, and such) 
• Septuagint - Greek translation of the Tanakh, to which was added many of the Apocryphal books as they were written and made popular
• Latin Vulgate - Latin translation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures by Jerome in the late 4th century CE, which included Apocryphal books.
• Masoretic Text - The Hebrew Bible that was standardized in the late half of the first millenium CE, from 600-900 CE or so. 

First, the Apocryphal books are considered part of the Old Testament, and all of these books were written before Christ, so I will ignore the New Testament in this answer, and will first discuss the Jewish origins of these books. The Apocryphal books have always had a marginal existence because most of them were written later than the remainder of the Old Testament, and it is believed that most of them were originally written in Greek or Aramaic, not Hebrew. This is important, because the Hebrew scriptures that became the source of the Christian canon diverged a bit when the Greek Septuagint translation was completed in the third century BCE, more or less.

What appears to have happened between the third and first centuries BCE is that Jews in the region of Judea and Palestine relied on the Original Hebrew version, but the Septuagint was popular everywhere else. The Greek Septuagint was most likely written in Alexandria, Egypt, and was embraced by the Jewish community there, one of the most influential Jewish communities at that time. Since most of the diaspora Jews spoke Greek, it was natural for them to embrace the Septuagint.

But since many of the Apocryphal books hadn't been written until after the Tanakh portion of the Septuagint was completed, many of these works kind of worked their way into collections of scrolls used by Greek readers, and gradually gained some level of scriptural authority.

Keep in mind that the general practice at this time was not to bind all the books of the Tanakh together into one volume. Rather, each book was it's own volume in the form of a scroll. What we now see as a single book on the shelf would have been a collection of scrolls. More popular scrolls were more widely copied and purchased, so it was possible that a person or synagogue might not own every bit of the Tanakh, and there may have been more copies of more popular portions of scripture. Apocryphal books were popular, and their scrolls might be found among the traditional scrolls, and appear as scripture to many people. It was only natural that they would be elevated ever time, and included in the collections of scriptures in the pre-Christian era. Keep in mind also that the Apocrypha, being Greek, was far more likely to be found among readers of the Septuagint than the Hebrew readers who resided mainly in Judea.

About the time that Christianity arose in the first and second centuries CE, a new form of book called the codex was becoming popular. A codex is basically a book as we know it today. They had clear advantages over scrolls, and it became possible to place all the Biblical texts into a single, rather large, codex. This development probably contributed to the fact that in the end, the Hebrew Tanakh contained only the original scriptures while the Septuagint included the Apocryphal books as they became more popular.

The Apocrypha consists of books written (or at least preserved) in Greek, which were included with the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was commonly used by the Jewish diaspora, while Jews living in Judea, Galilee, and Babylon continued to use the Hebrew for all liturgical readings. Most of the early converts to Christianity were Greek-speaking Gentiles, so the Septuagint, with Apocrypha, became the de facto version of the Old Testament used by the early Church.

It is clear that Christians embraced the Septuagint from the beginning. The New Testament was written in Greek. When New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament, the quotes are directly taken from the Septuagint. Most telling, the earliest copies of the Bible in book form are Christian, and contain the Septuagint for the Old Testament portion, not the Hebrew. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus all contain the Apocryphal books. It is clear that by the 5th century at least, Christians regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, although there had always been questions raised.

Also, the Latin Vulgate, which Jerome translated from both the Hebrew Tanakh and the Septuagint, contains the Apocryphal books as well. Interestingly, Jerome himself did not agree that the Apocrypha were canonical, but he was argued down, and the Apocrypha were added. The Latin Vulgate was of course embraced by the Latin speaking Romans, while the Greek Septuagint was embraced by the Greek Orthodox Christians. The Apocrypha was thus embraced by both eastern and western strains of medieval Christianity.

In later centuries, Jewish scholars completed a centuries-long process of standardizing and codifying the Hebrew Tanakh into what is now called the Masoretic text. This text was more or less completed by 1000 CE, and has been proven to be quite close to the earliest Hebrew manuscripts that have since been found in places like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic text did not include any apocryphal books, and it is clear from this that Jews differ from Christians in this regard, even though the apocrypha was originally written by Jews.

It is clear that both the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic churches that arose in the middle ages regarded the Apocryphal books as scripture, leaving any suggestion that Catholics added them after the reformation as ludicrous. As for the Protestants rejection of the Apocrypha, I would guess that there was an awakening of interest in Hebrew scriptures at this time in history among Europeans, and Protestant scholars apparently felt the Hebrew Tanakh was more likely to be the true, original scripture. They were also looking for ways to distinguish themselves from the Catholics. In moving toward the Hebrew text as the primary language source, they came to reject the apocrypha, in agreement with the Jewish community.

So why are Protestants afraid of the Apocrypha? I think it’s because we think that it’s Catholic, and since we’re Protestant, we don’t want to taint our theology with the dogma of Rome.

What is the Apocrypha?

The Old Testament Apocrypha (to distinguish it from the New Testament Apocrypha, which is much different) is a collection of 7 (or sometimes 10 or more) books written by faithful Jews living during the intertestamental period. Here’s a snapshot of their content:

• 1-2 Maccabees. A history of the Greek persecution of the Jewish people, and the subsequent Maccabean revolt (around 180-140 B.C.).
• Wisdom of Solomon. A Jewish philosophical treatise about the righteous and wicked
• Tobit. A tale about a righteous male Jew, similar to Job
• Judith. A tale about a righteous female Jew, similar to (though in many ways, quite different from) Esther
• Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom literature similar to Proverbs
• Additions to Daniel and Esther. Like it sounds, these contain bits that are left out of the biblical books.
• Baruch. A book that longs for God’s restoration of Israel.

These books were written by God-fearing Jews—not Catholics nor Protestants. And they were written before Christ, so its authors did not have a chance to accept Jesus as Lord and Savoir. The books ended up being collected in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) and then the Latin Vulgate, and since the Vulgate was the standard Bible of the church for over 1,000 years (around AD 400-1500), the Apocrypha became part of the canon. However, they were considered “deuterocanical,” or in layperson’s terms “not as important as the 66 books of the canon.” When the Reformation hit (1500s), the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as part of inspired Scripture.


Interestingly, however, the Reformers didn’t rip out and burn the Apocrypha when they stood against the Catholic Church. In fact, Martin Luther and others continued to print their Bibles with the Apocrypha in it. It wasn’t until the late 1800s when even Protestant King James Bibles began to be printed without the Apocrypha. So the Apocrypha is not Catholic. It’s a collection of Jewish books written between the Testaments, when faithful Jews were seeking to live righteously in the midst of a pagan environment. already shown that it’s not Catholic, so there should be no fear of transforming into a worshipper of Mary by flipping its pages. I’ve also heard people raise the question: “Since it’s not inspired, then we shouldn’t read it.”

Hmmm…do I even need to address this, or is the inconsistency as glaring to you as it is to me? If we should only read inspired literature, then our libraries need a serious renovation.

What about all the supposed doctrines in the Apocrypha that are dangerous? I mean, even though it wasn’t written by Catholics, it contains stuff that leads to Catholic doctrine, right?

Well, sort of, but not really. Yes, there are certain passages that Catholics will go to in order to support certain doctrines (praying for the dead, purgatory, salvation by works), but you’d be surprised at how unclear such passages are. If you read the Apocrypha and weren’t looking for these doctrines, you’d probably pass right over them. Moreover, there are passages in the NT that could (but don’t) suggest the same thing: 1 Corinthians chapters 3, 15, and James 2 all could be taken to support purgatory, praying for the dead, and salvation by works respectively (again, I don’t think they do). But we still read them.

So what benefit is there in reading the Apocrypha? Here are a couple.

First, it helps us breathe the ancient air that Jesus and the apostles breathed. Books like 1 Maccabees acquaint us with the history that branded the idea of the kingdom of God on the hearts and minds of first century Jews. Wisdom of Solomon helps us see a blend of Jewish and philosophical reasoning that we see in Hebrews and (to some extent) in John. Plus, Paul was probably in critical dialogue with the Wisdom of Solomon when he wrote Romans. Other books such as the apocalypse of 2 Esdras (or 4 Ezra, which is in some versions of the Apocrypha) helps us to interpret the book of Revelation. It too talks about weird creatures coming out of the sea. In short, these books help us to situate the NT in its own context.

Second, these books can be downright inspiring. No, I didn’t say inspired, but inspiring. Many of the faithful Jews who wrote and resonated with the books of the Apocrypha lived in a time where obedience meant death and apostasy could result in much wealth and cultural acceptance. The Apocrypha, therefore, may be a healthy alternative than much of the fluffy junk that inundates our Christian bookstores today. And, if we are going to read non-inspired literature (John Piper, Mark Driscoll, John MacArthur, Beth Moore, etc.), then why not read stuff that was written right around the time of Jesus?

All in all, I’ve been tremendously blessed by reading the Apocrypha and have a better handle of the NT because of it.