I've been pondering whether God meant the Apocrypha to be part of the Bible. Unfortunately, the Bible does not have a table of contents, so we are left trying to figure that out... Since the core message remains the same regardless of the inclusion of the Apocrypha, I wanted to hear your opinion on whether we should try to encourage the church to embrace the totality of inspired scripture (including the Apocrypha) and stay consistent with early church practice. (I don’t think the 16th-century reformers had any right to remove the Apocrypha.) —G.S.
As I’m recovering from several surgeries at the moment, and can type with only one hand, why don't you take a peek at my website, douglasjacoby.com? You might also benefit from listen to my five talks on “How the Bible Came to Be.” I also wrote Second Thoughts on the Apocrypha/. Let me know what you learn and we can continue the conversation in a few weeks.
I had a chance to hear your audio messages and also to read the accompanying notes, and was especially interested in what you had to say about the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books. Really good information—and I learned a lot. Thank you! Yet you hardly mentioned the 4th century councils that held the Apocrypha to be scripture. Since these councils settled on our 27 New Testament books, wouldn't the same councils not be inspired about contents of the Old Testament? I realize that these councils only had local authority. Could the canon vary from one region to another? Last, the Deuterocanonical books were used and accepted for some fifteen centuries. Did the Spirit not clarify matters of canon for fifteen centuries? I appreciate your insights into these controversial topics, since Christians should be knowledgeable when discussing the basis of our faith.
Interesting questions. You are referring to the conversations that took place in Rome (382 AD), Hippo (in 393), Carthage (397, 419)—and, much later, in Florence (1442) and Trent (1546). And you’re right, most Protestants essentially removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament. The process of canonization is, in my opinion, may be the most complex area of church history—if I may include it there. Just take a look at the Wikipedia article on this topic!
In fact, I have posed this very question (yours) to several Protestant biblical scholars, and never received a satisfying answer. However, I don't actually accept the authority of any of the councils. Yet they are interesting in that they provide a window on the process.
It seems the ancient Jews had their Apocrypha in their Bible. Otherwise these books would not have been translated in the LXX (3rd-2nd centuries BC). But by the 2nd century AD they don't seem to still be using them. In part I believe this is because Christians were quoting apocryphal passages to proclaim Jesus—like Wisdom chapter 2 (a passage as stunning to me as Isaiah 53).
As I mentioned in my article on the Apocrypha, Christians cited these works increasingly as the centuries went on. I'm not sure they held the same views to begin with. For example, Hebrews 11 clearly refers to second Maccabees. Yet does this mean an acknowledgment of the inspiration of the book, or simply the utilization of the story of the murder of the mother and her sons?
People like you and me focus a lot on these kinds of questions. Probably where we should be focusing is the message of the Bible. The big picture, the flow, fundamental teachings. I agree: these do not seem to be affected whether or not we accept the Deuterocanonical writings.
On the practical side, I normally encourage people to read the Apocrypha—once they have read the entire Bible five or more times. I know, that may sound arbitrary. (It is.) But the issues are so complex that those without a solid grasp of Scripture may be thrown off balance unless they are serious students. Parts of the Apocrypha are problematic, and we should resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, or to accept the first view presented to us (Prov 18:17). I hope they will then come to their own conclusions.
I also encourage us to read about the background of the Bible. For an easy (not-too-academic) read, see my own A Quick Overview of the Bible. The more context, the better!
