What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?

The name given to those Books which were attached to the MSS copies of the LXX, but which do not form a part of the canon of scripture. The term itself signifies, 'hidden,' 'secret,' 'occult;' and, as to any pretence of being a part of scripture, they must be described as 'spurious.' There are such writings connected with both the Old and the New Testament, but generally speaking the term 'Apocrypha' refers to the O.T. (for those connected with the N. Test. see APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The O.T. books are: 1 I. Esdras. 2 II. Esdras. 3 Tobit. 4 Judith. 5 Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee. 6 Wisdom of Solomon. 7 Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus; quoted Ecclus. 8 Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah. 9 Song of the Three Holy Children 10 The History of Susanna. 11 Bel and the Dragon. 12 Prayer of Manasseh. 13 I. Maccabees. 14 II. Maccabees.

The Council of Trent in A.D. 1546, professing to be guided by the Holy Spirit, declared the Apocrypha to be a part of the Holy Scripture. The above fourteen books formed part of the English Authorised Version of 1611, but are now seldom attached to the canonical books. Besides the above there are a few others, as the III., IV., and V. Maccabees, book of Enoch, etc., not regarded by any one as a part of scripture. It may be noticed

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Let it be observed that the Roman Church does not deny the fact upon which the Reformers proceeded — viz., that these Apocryphal books were never received as canonical by the Jews. It will be seen, on reference to the preface of the Douay Bible — i.e., the English version of the Bible sanctioned by the Roman Church — that the canonicity of the Apocrypha is made to rest, solely on the dogmatic authority of the Church.

The Apocrypha.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

The Apocrypha was first received as canonical by the Council of Trent, 1545, and is highly regarded by Roman Catholics throughout the world.

The following statements are important to remember: No portion of the Apocrypha was written in Hebrew, but all in Greek, although by Jews, and never formed part of the Hebrew canon. It was written more than a century after the completion of the Old Testament. It was never regarded by the Jews or their writers as possessing the slightest claim to inspiration. Neither the Lord nor Apostles ever cited from, or referred to, the Apocrypha.

In the first place, the Church of Rome boldly declared that it was only 'the church' that could decide what books were canonical: as early as the Council of Carthage (about A.D. 400) lists of the books were made out, and at the Council of Trent they dogmatically settled what books constituted the scripture. They decided to include the books now known as the APOCRYPHA (q.v.), as may be seen in the Latin Vulgate, which is the version used by that church. Now the scripture informs us that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3:2, and as is well known they most carefully guarded the O.T. scriptures for centuries before there was any christian church. The books were written in the Jews' language — the Hebrew — with which the Apocrypha never had a place. They were written in Greek, and were first added to the LXX. The above principle — that the scriptures require to be accredited by the church — is false. Surely God could make a revelation that would in no wise need to have the seal of a body of men placed upon it, be they ever so holy. But the Church of Rome was not holy, nor was it universal, so that even if the alleged principle were correct, that corrupt section of the church would be the last to be taken as an authoritative guide.

The N.T. has also had its perils. With the Greek MSS apocryphal books are found, parts of which were read in the churches in early days. Later on several of the Fathers of the church so called had their doubts respecting some of the Epistles. Even as late as the Reformers it was the same. Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and set them apart at the end of his version. Calvin doubted the authenticity of James, 2 Peter, and Jude. In modern times many portions of books in the O.T. and N.T. are being called in question. But the Bible needs not to be accredited by man. It carries its own credentials to the heart and conscience of the Christian in the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man is not competent to judge of such a question. The Bible has the stamp of God upon it, and the more it is studied by the Christian the more perfect it is found to be — no part redundant, and no part lacking.

The Roman Catholics include within the covers of their Bible the books commonly known as "The Apocrypha." These books were never received as canonical by the Jews; they do not afford the internal evidences of divine inspiration as do the books of "the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets"; they are never quoted either by the Lord Himself or the apostles: so that we have very good reasons for not regarding them as divinely given, however authentic as histories some of them may be.

The Alexandrian collection took in more Books than the Hebrew: this may be seen from the Septuagint in its complete form. The accretions called 'external,' 'extraneous' in the Talmud, are to us known by the name of Apocrypha, meaning either, books with a hidden, mystical meaning, or, books that are kept back, though not lightly esteemed.* In modern Greek, the meanings of apokruphos seem to be secret, hidden, occult. We might perhaps compare the relation between these writings and those of our Old Testament to that between the Patristic and the New Testament writings.

Some books of the Apocrypha were translated into Greek or Latin from Hebrew or Aramaic; others were written originally in Greek. They were never accepted by the Palestinian Jews, though some were of Palestinian origin. Josephus is a primary witness for the Hebrew (or Palestinian) Canon: we have seen the form it takes in his hands. (Cf. chap. 3 § 1.) It is not that the books of the Apocrypha contain nothing worth reading. Wisdom 2:23 would set right the materialism of our own day; 11:5 of the same book in the Greek ought to put to shame the opponents of the doctrine of endless torment, who boast of their much learning. But the leaders of the nation at the centre of its life had divine instincts to which under God we owe the purity of the Hebrew Canon.

At this time we meet with the expression 'ecclesiastical books.' It was applied to those books which, though regarded as not inspired, were considered worthy of perusal: they did in fact contribute to the Church lectionaries. The ancient MSS. of the LXX, as we have said, are evidence of the practice (cf. chap. 4 § 3). To this class appear to have been consigned the books of the LXX called in the Talmud 'extraneous' (ibid. 2).

By 'apocryphal,' as far back as we have been able to trace the word, and down to the fourth century, were meant such books as had grown up since the Alexandrian Bible was completed. The reader may consult Sophocles' Lexicon of Roman and Byzantine Greek, under ἀπόκρυφος (apokruphos), where references are given to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. We shall have to return to the discussion of its meaning when speaking of Jerome.

As some of the spurious books were added to the LXX Version (the O.T. in the Greek) and to the Latin translation of the LXX, some of the early Christian writers were in doubt as to whether they should be received or not, and this uncertainty existed more or less until the before mentioned Council of Trent decided that the greater part of the Apocrypha was to be regarded as canonical. Happily at that time the Reformation had opened the eyes of many Christians to the extreme corruption of the church of Rome, and in rejecting the claims of that church they were also freed from its judgement as to the Apocryphal books.

Luther, thanks be to God, followed by the rest of the Reformers, reverted to the Hebrew Canon, detached the writings added to the Alexandrian and Latin versions from the Hebrew Books, and applied to the former the general name of Apocrypha, which, as already explained, was derived from Jerome. But the Lutheran bodies, following the example of the great Reformer, who set a high value upon some of the Apocrypha, have not been so rigorous in their rejection of these books as have been the 'Reformed' communions. No 'Puritans' have gone further than the Presbyterians in their condemnation of the Apocrypha. In the 'Westminster Confession' (art. 111) we read as follows: The Apocrypha 'are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.' Dr. Payne Smith's words bring out the essential weakness of the Apocrypha: 'All in them which is distinctive is at variance with Holy Scripture, and diverges into ideas and doctrines irreconcileable with the past and barren for the future.' ('Bible Educator,' ii. p.374.) With this compare the remarks of Taylor in his Work on Ancient Books: 'Bad imitations of the style of the Scriptures — some of the Old Testament, have been attempted … and are such as afford the most striking illustration that can be imagined of the difference in simplicity, dignity and consistency, which one should expect to find, severally, in the genuine and the spurious.' ('Transmission,' pp.186 sq.)

You quote Tobias also: that is, the Apocrypha. This is one of the terrible sins of Rome. She has pretended to authenticate as scripture what was never owned as such till the middle of the sixteenth century, and what the very person who made the translation which she declares to be authentic states not to be scripture at all. Over and over again he (Jerome) declares there are twenty-two books, excluding thus the Apocrypha from the canon; and in particular, in his preface to Tobias, says it was not in the Hebrew scriptures. In his preface to the Books of Solomon he says, "As, therefore, the church reads, indeed, Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." He refers to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Athanasius reckons them up also, twenty-two, both in the Synopsis (if it be his, for some have doubted it), and in the fragment of the Festal epistle, giving them, he says, because some would dare to mix apocryphal books with divine scriptures, and speaking of Tobias and others as read, but not canonical.

121 Origen tells us the same, Eusebius also. But, to be brief, Christ never cites these books, nor are they found in the Hebrew at all. They were never owned by the Jews as part of their scriptures. Josephus is distinct as to what was received, and says there were none after Artaxerxes; that there were others, but not canonical, and that the prophets gave their sanction to books as forming part of the canon. He owned they have no kind of authority whatever; and all authority, Jewish and Christian, declared they were not of the canon till the Council of Trent. Now, the oracles of God are committed to the church, as of old they were to the Jews. The church gives them no authority — it cannot to what God has spoken; but when God had given them, He entrusted them to the church to keep — only watching over it in all His providence — and Rome has proved herself not the church by deliberate unfaithfulness to this, by setting up as scripture what all Jews and the church, and all witnesses, declare with one voice is not. She is self-condemned here. See what is said in Maccabees: "If I have written well, and as befits the story, that is what I wish; if ill, it is to be pardoned me." Why, it is blasphemy to ascribe such words to the Holy Ghost; and of that blasphemy Rome is guilty.