Bible 101

Lesson 2: Who decided what the finished Bible should look like?

The Apocrypha

We have explored how the books of both the OT and NT were compiled, and who compiled them. We also now understand that there were a number of writings that circulated within the early church, yet not all of them were considered to be canonical. Some of the writings that circulated are preserved to this day. We refer to them as the apocrypha. Both the OT and the NT have their own respective apocrypha.

The term apocrypha was coined around the fourth century AD, and originally denoted the books that the Catholic Church added to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew text) translation of the OT. Later on, this term came to mean all the writings that claimed to be inspired writings, yet are not accepted to be part of the canon by the body of believers at large. For the OT, these books are I & II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, I & II Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. (7) Other OT writings in circulation, which neither belong to the OT apocrypha nor the OT canon, are the Books of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles.

The books belonging to the NT apocrypha are the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, the Second Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Teaching of the Twelve, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Seven Epistles of Ignatius, the Gospel of Jesus, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Joseph the Carpenter, the Acts of John, Letter of Peter to James, Letter of Paul to Seneca and a host of other writings. (8) Additional writings, not belonging to the NT canon or the apocrypha are the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the Epistle to the Corinthian Church, and many others.

In light of so much inspirational writing, it is hard to imagine how it could be firmly determined which books were really considered scripture, and which were considered encouraging writings or simply folklore dressed up to look like scripture. The good news is, for the OT, it is relatively easy to determine which books were accepted, for example by the settlement of the Council of Jamnia. Further, most writers of the NT quoted profusely from the OT, as we know it, yet never from the writings of the apocrypha. This in itself shows conclusively which writings were accepted by the early church fathers as authentic. Further, epochal historians often would refer to the books of the OT, yet not to the writings of the apocrypha. Following the example of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, the Christian church held its own council, the Synod of Hippo some 300 years later, in 393 AD, at which time the writings already accepted as canonical during earlier meetings were confirmed, and the writings of the apocrypha were specifically excluded. (9)

The best way to get a “feel” for the different writings of the canon and the apocrypha, is to ready the books of the Bible, and thereafter read the books of the apocrypha. It becomes clear rather quickly that something is different. In addition to the “feel” of the books, the apocrypha often teaches such doctrines as penance, purgatory, almsgiving for forgiveness, sex for procreation only, prayers to/for the dead, and a vast number of other Biblically objectionable teachings. None of the canon scripture stand in direct contradiction with each other, yet the books of the apocrypha do.

  1  2  3  4  5