Hubbry Logo
Biblical apocryphaBiblical apocryphaMain
Open search
Biblical apocrypha
Community hub
Biblical apocrypha
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Biblical apocrypha
Biblical apocrypha
Biblical apocrypha
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canons and books
Translations and manuscripts
Biblical studies
Biblical criticism
Interpretation
Perspectives
Outline of Bible-related topics
Bible portal
Copies of the Luther Bible include the intertestamental books between the Old Testament and New Testament; they are termed the "Apocrypha" in Christian denominations having their origins in the Reformation.

The Biblical apocrypha (from Ancient Greek ἀπόκρυφος (apókruphos) 'hidden') denotes the collection of ancient books, some of which are believed by some to be of doubtful origin, thought to have been written some time between 200 BC and 100 AD.[1][2][3][4][5]

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches include some or all of the same texts within the body of their version of the Old Testament, with Catholics terming them deuterocanonical books.[6] Traditional 80-book Protestant Bibles include fourteen books in an intertestamental section between the Old Testament and New Testament called the Apocrypha, deeming these useful for instruction, but non-canonical.[7][8][9][10] Reflecting this view, the lectionaries of the Lutheran Churches and Anglican Communion include readings from the Apocrypha.[11][12]

Acceptance

[edit]

Some of the Biblical apocrypha were in the canon accepted by the earliest ecumenical councils.

It was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate intertestamental section. The preface to the Apocrypha in the Geneva Bible claimed that while these books "were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church", and did not serve "to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same", nonetheless, "as books proceeding from godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners."[13] Later, during the English Civil War, the Westminster Confession of 1647 excluded the Apocrypha from the canon and made no recommendation of the Apocrypha above "other human writings",[14] and this attitude toward the Apocrypha is represented by the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society in the early 19th century not to print it. Today, English Bibles with the Apocrypha are becoming more popular again, and they are often printed as intertestamental books.[8]

Many of these texts are considered canonical Old Testament books by the Catholic Church, affirmed by the Council of Rome (382) and later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545–1563); and by the Eastern Orthodox Church which are referred to as anagignoskomena per the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

The Lutheran Churches normatively include in the Bible the Apocrypha as an intertestamental section between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of the Old Testamental Apocrypha, Martin Luther said, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read" (AE 35:337)[15]. The Book of Concord, the compendium of Evangelical Lutheran doctrine, quotes Tobit 4:10[16] and cites 2 Maccabees 15:14[17]. The systematic theologian Martin Chemnitz, a leading figure in the development of Evangelical Lutheranism, cites Sirach 38:25-26 as helpful[18]. Chemnitz also separates Old Testament Scripture into two categories: canonical and apocryphal[19]. The Dietrich Catechism, once widely used in Evangelical Lutheranism, affirms that apart from the canonical books, the Bible does contain the apocrypha.[20]

The Anglican Communion accepts "the Apocrypha for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine (Article VI in the Thirty-Nine Articles)",[21] and many "lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha", with these lessons being "read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament".[22] The first Methodist liturgical book, The Sunday Service of the Methodists, employs verses from the Apocrypha, such as in the Eucharistic liturgy.[23] The Protestant Apocrypha contains three books (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) that are accepted by many Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches as canonical, but are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles.[24]

As of 1981, the Apocrypha are "included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches".[12][11] Anabaptists use the Luther Bible, which contains the Apocrypha as intertestamental books; Amish wedding ceremonies include "the retelling of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Apocrypha".[25] Moreover, the Revised Common Lectionary, in use by most mainline Protestants including Methodists and Moravians, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar, although alternate Old Testament scripture lessons are provided.[26]

Vulgate prologues

[edit]
See also: Development of the Hebrew Bible canon and Development of the Old Testament canon

Jerome completed his translation of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. The Vulgate manuscripts included prologues,[27] in which Jerome clearly identified certain books of the older Old Latin Old Testament version as apocryphal – or non-canonical – even though they might be read as scripture.

In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, he says:[28]

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In the prologue to Ezra Jerome states that the third book and fourth book of Ezra are apocryphal; while the two books of Ezra in the Vetus Latina version, translating 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras of the Septuagint, are 'variant examples' of the same Hebrew original.[29]

In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he says:[30]

Also included is the book of the model of virtue (παναρετος) Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work (ψευδεπιγραφος) which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to Jeremiah but does not include it as 'apocrypha'; stating that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews".[31]

In his prologue to Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.[32] In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:

What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Against Rufinus, II:33 (AD 402)).[33]

According to Michael Barber, although Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture as shown in his epistles. Barber cites Jerome's letter to Eustochium, in which Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2.;[34] elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.[35][36][37]

Apocrypha in editions of the Bible

[edit]
The contents page in a complete 80-book King James Bible, listing "The Books of the Old Testament", "The Books called Apocrypha", and "The Books of the New Testament".

Apocrypha are well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See, for example, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent[38] (8 April 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the 1545 Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section in between the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.

Gutenberg Bible

[edit]

This famous edition of the Vulgate was published in 1455. Like the manuscripts on which it was based, the Gutenberg Bible lacks a specific Apocrypha section.[39] Its Old Testament includes the books that Jerome considered apocryphal and those Pope Clement VIII later moved to the appendix. The Prayer of Manasseh is located after the Books of Chronicles, 3 and 4 Esdras follow 2 Esdras (Nehemiah), and Prayer of Solomon follows Ecclesiasticus.[citation needed]

Luther Bible

[edit]
Main articles: Luther Bible, Intertestamental period, and Luther's canon

Martin Luther translated the Bible into German during the early part of the 16th century, first releasing a complete Bible in 1534. His bible was the first major edition to have a separate section called an apocrypha. Books and portions of books not found in the Masoretic Text of Judaism were moved out of the body of the Old Testament to this section.[40] Luther placed these books between the Old and New Testaments. For this reason, these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books. The books 1 and 2 Esdras were omitted entirely.[41] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint,[42] stating that books not found in Hebrew were not received as canonical.

Although his statement was controversial in his day,[43] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-nine Articles.[44]

Luther also expressed some doubts about the canonicity of four New Testament books, although he never called them apocrypha: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Revelation to John. He did not put them in a separately named section, but he did move them to the end of his New Testament.[45]

Clementine Vulgate

[edit]
See also: Books of the Latin Vulgate

In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published his revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books not found in the canon of the Council of Trent from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent).[46]

The protocanonical and deuterocanonical books he placed in their traditional positions in the Old Testament.

King James Version

[edit]

The English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 placed the books in an inter-testamental section labelled "the Books called Apocrypha".[47] The section contains the following:[48]

(Included in this list are those books of the Clementine Vulgate that were not in Luther's canon).

These are the books most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the books called Apocrypha". These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England as "the other books".[49] Despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of some printings of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament.

The Bible and the Puritan revolution

[edit]

The British Puritan revolution of the 1600s brought a change in the way many British publishers handled the apocryphal material associated with the Bible. The Puritans used the standard of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) to determine which books would be included in the canon. The Westminster Confession of Faith, composed during the British Civil Wars (1642–1651), excluded the Apocrypha from the canon. The Confession provided the rationale for the exclusion: 'The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings' (1.3).[50] Thus, Bibles printed by English Protestants who separated from the Church of England began to exclude these books.[citation needed]

Other early Bible editions

[edit]

All English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew's Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582–1609) placed the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras into an Appendix of the second volume of the Old Testament.

In the Zürich Bible (1529–30), they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras. The 1st edition omitted the Prayer of Manasseh and the Rest of Esther, although these were included in the 2nd edition. The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".

In 1569 the Spanish Reina Bible, following the example of the pre-Clementine Latin Vulgate, contained the deuterocanonical books in its Old Testament. Following the other Protestant translations of its day, Valera's 1602 revision of the Reina Bible moved these books into an inter-testamental section.

Modern editions

[edit]

All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha,[51] though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha".[52] In 1826,[53] the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha,[54] resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that not printing the Apocrypha within the Bible would prove to be less costly to produce.[55][56] Since that time most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. Modern non-Catholic reprintings of the Clementine Vulgate commonly omit the Apocrypha section. Many reprintings of older versions of the Bible now omit the apocrypha and many newer translations and revisions have never included them at all.

There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Some editions of the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version of the Bible include not only the Apocrypha listed above, but also 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151.

The American Bible Society lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964. The British and Foreign Bible Society followed in 1966.[57] The Stuttgart Vulgate (the printed edition, not most of the on-line editions), which is published by the UBS, contains the Clementine Apocrypha as well as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151.

Brenton's edition of the Septuagint includes all of the Apocrypha found in the King James Bible with the exception of 2 Esdras, which was not in the Septuagint and is no longer extant in Greek.[58] He places them in a separate section at the end of his Old Testament, following English tradition.

In Greek circles, however, these books are not traditionally called Apocrypha, but Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα), and are integrated into the Old Testament. The Orthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, includes the Anagignoskomena in its Old Testament, with the exception of 4 Maccabees. This was translated by the Saint Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, from the Rahlfs Edition of the Septuagint using Brenton's English translation and the RSV Expanded Apocrypha as their standardized text. As such, they are included in the Old Testament with no distinction between these books and the rest of the Old Testament. This follows the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church where the Septuagint is the received version of Old Testament scripture, considered itself inspired in agreement with some of the Fathers, such as St Augustine, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text followed by all other modern translations.[59]

Anagignoskomena

[edit]

The Septuagint, the ancient and best known Greek version of the Old Testament, contains books and additions that are not present in the Hebrew Bible. These texts are not traditionally segregated into a separate section, nor are they usually called apocrypha. Rather, they are referred to as the Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα, "things that are read" or "profitable reading"). The anagignoskomena are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (in the Vulgate this is chapter 6 of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, i.e. all of the Deuterocanonical books plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.[60]

Some editions add additional books, such as Psalm 151 or the Odes (including the Prayer of Manasseh). 2 Esdras is added as an appendix in the Slavonic Bibles and 4 Maccabees as an appendix in Greek editions.[60]

Pseudepigrapha

[edit]

Technically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the texts listed above. Examples[61] include:

Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint.

Cultural impact

[edit]

At which I was greatly encouraged in my soul. ... So coming home, I presently went to my Bible, to see if I could find that saying, not doubting but to find it presently. ... Thus I continued above a year, and could not find the place; but at last, casting my eye upon the Apocrypha books, I found it in Ecclesiasticus, chap. ii. 10. This, at the first, did somewhat daunt me; because it was not in those texts that we call holy and canonical; yet, as this sentence was the sum and substance of many of the promises, it was my duty to take the comfort of it; and I bless God for that word, for it was of good to me. That word doth still ofttimes shine before my face.[63]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Biblical apocrypha

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Biblical apocrypha denotes a corpus of ancient texts, chiefly of Jewish provenance and composed between approximately 200 BCE and 100 CE, that were incorporated into the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament and later the Latin Vulgate, thereby attaining deuterocanonical status in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons while being deemed non-inspired and excluded from the Hebrew Tanakh and Protestant Old Testaments. These writings encompass wisdom literature, historical narratives, and expansions on canonical books, including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and additions to Daniel (such as Susanna and Bel and the Dragon) and Esther. The central dispute over their status stems from variances in canonical criteria: adherents to the deuterocanonical view cite early Christian usage and councils like those at Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE), whereas Protestants prioritize the shorter Hebrew canon, absence of New Testament quotations, internal historical inaccuracies, and teachings conflicting with core doctrines such as justification by faith alone. Though rejected as authoritative Scripture by Protestants, the apocrypha were historically printed in many Reformation-era Bibles—often in a separate section—for moral instruction and historical context, reflecting a nuanced appreciation short of divine inspiration.

Definition and Terminology

Core Definition and Historical Usage of "Apocrypha"

The term "" originates from the apocrypha, derived from the Greek apokryphos, meaning "hidden" or "obscure." In biblical scholarship, it denotes a body of ancient Jewish writings, composed primarily between 200 BCE and 100 CE, that address themes of wisdom, history, , and narrative expansion on figures but lack clear attestation of prophetic authorship or as understood in the . These texts, numbering around 14 to 15 books depending on the (e.g., Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, and additions to and Daniel), were preserved in Greek translations and circulated among Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian communities, though they were never incorporated into the 24-book Hebrew canon formalized by rabbinic authorities by the CE. Historically, "" initially described esoteric or privately circulated writings known only to select groups, as noted by early Church Father in the CE, who applied it to texts not publicly read in . By the late 4th century, , in his translation commissioned around 382–405 CE, used the term to categorize certain Septuagint-included books as apocryphal, arguing they lacked Hebrew originals and thus held secondary status compared to protocanonical scriptures accepted by Jewish authorities. The label gained prominence during the 16th-century Protestant , when , in his 1534 German , segregated these books into an intertestamental section titled "," deeming them edifying for moral instruction but non-canonical due to doctrinal inconsistencies, such as prayers for the dead in 12:44–45, which conflicted with principles. This usage contrasted with Catholic reaffirmation at the in 1546, which designated them deuterocanonical, highlighting ongoing debates over canonicity rooted in linguistic, historical, and theological criteria rather than uniform early consensus.

Distinction from Deuterocanonical Books and Pseudepigrapha

The Biblical apocrypha comprise a specific set of Jewish writings from the , roughly 200 BCE to 100 CE, that were incorporated into the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and later the Latin but omitted from the finalized Hebrew canon around 90 CE at the . This collection includes Tobit, Judith, additions to , Wisdom of , Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, , additions to Daniel (including Susanna, , and the Prayer of Azariah), , and . Deuterocanonical books refer to precisely the same texts, but the term emphasizes their status as part of a "second canon" accepted as inspired Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church, formalized at the on April 8, 1546, and by Eastern Orthodox traditions with some variations in inclusion. In Protestant usage, these works are denominated —meaning "hidden" or of doubtful authenticity—deemed edifying for reading but lacking , as argued by reformers like in his 1534 translation, which segregated them between the Old and New Testaments with a prefatory note disclaiming their doctrinal authority. Pseudepigrapha differ fundamentally as a broader category of ancient Jewish and early Christian literature pseudonymously ascribed to figures like , , or the patriarchs, encompassing works such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the , composed between the 3rd century BCE and 2nd century CE. Unlike the , pseudepigraphal texts were not included in the , , or any primary canonical collections of major Christian confessions, remaining outside even deuterocanonical considerations due to their esoteric content, late composition, or lack of attestation in early church lists like those of Athanasius in 367 CE. These distinctions arose historically from varying criteria for canonicity, including apostolic origin, liturgical use, and alignment with the Hebrew protocanon, with pseudepigrapha often viewed as interpretive expansions rather than scriptural equivalents.

Historical Context and Composition

Origins in Intertestamental Period

The , extending from roughly 400 BCE after the last prophetic writings of the to the advent of CE, witnessed the composition of many texts later classified as biblical apocrypha. This era encompassed Jewish experiences under Persian suzerainty until circa 331 BCE, followed by Hellenistic rule after Alexander the Great's conquests, Seleucid persecution, the (167–160 BCE), Hasmonean independence, and eventual Roman intervention by 63 BCE. Amid these upheavals, Jewish authors produced literature addressing historical events, moral instruction, and theological reflection, often in response to pressures and religious fidelity demands. Most apocryphal books originated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, bridging the canonical Hebrew prophets and the era. For instance, Tobit was likely composed between 225 and 175 BCE, portraying diaspora Jewish piety through narratives of , , and angelic intervention. Judith, dated around 100 BCE, recounts a fictionalized tale of a widow's deliverance of from Assyrian invasion, symbolizing resistance to foreign domination akin to Hasmonean triumphs. The Books of Maccabees provide key historical insights: 1 Maccabees (late 2nd century BCE) chronicles the revolt against ' desecrations from 167 BCE onward, emphasizing military and political successes under ; 2 Maccabees (mid-2nd century BCE) focuses on , martyrdom, and Hellenistic philosophical elements in retelling similar events. These works emerged from diverse Jewish communities, including those in Judea, Egypt's diaspora, and beyond, frequently in Greek to engage Hellenistic audiences while drawing on Semitic traditions. Wisdom texts like Sirach (Ben Sira, circa 180 BCE) and Wisdom of Solomon (1st century BCE) adapted proverbial and philosophical forms to affirm monotheism against syncretism. Expansions such as Additions to Daniel and Bel and the Dragon critiqued idolatry, reflecting synagogue-based piety without prophetic claims. Authorship is typically anonymous or pseudepigraphic, attributed to sages or figures like Solomon to lend authority, amid a broader literary output including pseudepigrapha, though the apocrypha proper gained traction via the Septuagint translation project initiated around 250 BCE in Alexandria. Scholars note these compositions filled a perceived prophetic void, offering ethical guidance and historical validation for Jewish resilience, yet they were not uniformly accepted into the Pharisaic or rabbinic canons, which prioritized pre-exilic Hebrew texts. Evidence from fragments confirms circulation among sectarian groups like the by the 2nd century BCE, underscoring their role in diverse .

Influence of Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christian Communities

The biblical apocrypha emerged prominently during the following the Great's conquests in 333 BCE, when communities, especially in , , encountered Greek culture and . This era fostered a synthesis in , evident in works like the Wisdom of Solomon, dated to the late 1st century BCE, which portrays Wisdom as an eternal, divine attribute akin to the Platonic logos or Stoic reason, facilitating Jewish against pagan while incorporating Hellenistic notions of and cosmic order. Similarly, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), composed around 180 BCE by Jesus ben Sira in Hebrew but rapidly translated into Greek, blends traditional Jewish proverbial wisdom with Hellenistic ethical emphases on and reason, reflecting the cultural milieu of partially Hellenized who sought to harmonize observance with Greek . These texts, often written or finalized in Greek, served to defend amid pressures from Seleucid policies, as seen in the Maccabean revolts (167–160 BCE), where historical accounts in 1 and emphasize piety and martyrdom in terms resonant with Greek historiographical styles. Early Christian communities, operating in the Greek-speaking from the CE, inherited and amplified these apocryphal works through their primary text, the (LXX), a Greek initiated around 250 BCE that encompassed absent from the later Hebrew canon. authors alluded to apocryphal ideas, such as the of the soul in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1–4 influencing Hebrews 11:35's reference to resurrection via "torture," and early fathers like (c. 96 CE) and (c. 185–254 CE) cited Sirach and Tobit approvingly in exhortations and commentaries, treating them as edifying scripture. This usage stemmed from the LXX's authority in apostolic circles, where it outnumbered Hebrew texts in circulation, enabling apocrypha to shape Christian doctrines on angels, demons, and —e.g., Bel and the Dragon's critique of paralleling early anti-pagan polemics—before debates over canonicity intensified in the CE. However, while integrated into lectionaries and codices like Vaticanus (), their inspirational status varied, with some patristic writers distinguishing them from due to perceived doctrinal inconsistencies or late composition.

Textual History

Inclusion in the Septuagint and Early Translations

The , the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures initiated in around the 3rd century BCE and completed by the 2nd century BCE, incorporated several books not present in the later Hebrew canon finalized by . These included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, additions to Daniel (such as Susanna, ), additions to , , , and sometimes 3-4 Maccabees or , depending on the manuscript. The inclusion likely stemmed from the broader corpus of Jewish writings circulating among Hellenistic Jews, with scrolls sometimes grouped together without strict canonical demarcation, though not all Septuagint codices (e.g., from the 4th century CE) contain identical sets, reflecting textual fluidity. Early Christian communities, relying heavily on the as their due to Greek's prevalence, adopted these books without initial distinction from protocanonical texts, as evidenced by quotations or allusions in writings and patristic literature. In the Latin Vulgate, completed by Jerome around 405 CE, the apocryphal books were translated from Greek or Hebrew sources but appended separately or with qualifiers, reflecting Jerome's explicit reservations about their status. Jerome, aligning with the Hebrew canon, argued in prefaces to Judith and Tobit that these works lacked Hebrew originals and were not received as prophetic Scripture by Jews, translating them only at the insistence of church authorities despite his view that they held ecclesiastical rather than canonical authority. This approach influenced subsequent Western traditions, though the Vulgate's widespread adoption preserved the texts. Other early translations, such as the Syriac Peshitta (2nd-5th centuries CE), variably included deuterocanonicals like Tobit and Judith but excluded others like Maccabees, indicating inconsistent transmission outside the Greek sphere. The persistence of these books in Greek and Latin versions thus bridged Jewish-Hellenistic literature into Christian usage, despite debates over their inspirational weight.

Manuscripts, Variants, and Preservation Challenges

The biblical apocrypha are preserved chiefly through Greek manuscripts of the , with the fourth-century exemplifying early integration of these texts alongside ; it includes Tobit, Judith, 1 and , Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. The contemporaneous similarly attests to their presence in uncial codices produced in Christian scriptoria. Semitic-language evidence emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit (from Caves 4 and 7, circa 100–50 BCE) and Sirach (from Cave 2, circa 200–100 BCE), along with the , confirm pre-Christian composition in original languages rather than solely as Greek compositions. Significant textual variants characterize these works, arising from divergent s, translational choices, and scribal traditions. Tobit features two primary Greek forms: a shorter (GI, akin to Vaticanus and ) omitting key narrative elements, and a longer (GII, as in Sinaiticus), which aligns more closely with 's Aramaic and Hebrew fragments but includes expansions possibly from later harmonization. Sirach's Hebrew witnesses—from , , and the medieval —diverge from the Greek in sequence, content (e.g., added prologues or verses), and phrasing, with the Greek often expanding proverbial material for Hellenistic audiences or reflecting interpretive liberties by the translator, grandson of the author. Preservation faces inherent difficulties due to the scarcity of complete early manuscripts, reliance on later copies prone to errors, and the texts' marginalization in post-70 CE Jewish transmission, which prioritized Hebrew protocanonicals in the Masoretic line, leading to their effective loss in that tradition. Christian custodianship ensured survival but introduced variants through theological adaptations, such as Vulgate renderings by (who preferred Hebrew where available but defaulted to Greek for most apocrypha) or Byzantine recensions. Fragmentation in finds, destruction of ancient repositories, and absence of autographs necessitate eclectic , weighing Semitic primacy against Greek antiquity, though no consensus archetype exists, complicating claims of textual stability.

Canonical Status Across Traditions

Jewish Perspective on Exclusion from Tanakh

In Judaism, the Tanakh's canon of 24 books was established through rabbinic tradition attributing them to prophetic inspiration during the biblical era, ending with around 400 BCE. The , originating in the Second Temple period (c. 516 BCE–70 CE), were excluded as they postdated this prophetic age and lacked the requisite divine authority recognized by the Anshei Hagedolah, including figures like . Key criteria for inclusion emphasized texts composed in Hebrew or by acknowledged prophets, with universal acceptance among Jewish communities and no contradictions to core teachings. Most Apocryphal works, such as Tobit, Judith, and the Books of , survive primarily in Greek translations or originals, diverging from the Tanakh's linguistic tradition, and were deemed external writings (Sefarim Hitsonim) rather than sacred scripture. First-century Jewish historian affirmed this exclusion by cataloging 22 canonical books matching the Tanakh in , omitting the Apocrypha entirely, which underscores their non-recognition in Pharisaic . Rabbinic sources, including the , occasionally reference Apocryphal texts like for ethical insights but prohibit their study as scripture to prevent conflation with inspired works, viewing some—such as additions in Susanna or —as erroneous or antithetical to halakhic norms. While providing historical value (e.g., informing observance), these books were not integrated into or authoritative , reflecting a deliberate preservation of the prophetic core.

Early Church Fathers' Varied Assessments

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253 AD) demonstrated caution toward the apocryphal books, aligning his canon with the 22 books of the Hebrew Scriptures as reported by of Caesarea, while occasionally citing works like and Sirach for illustrative purposes without granting them full scriptural authority. , in his 39th Festal Letter dated 367 AD, explicitly delimited the canon to the 22 matching the Hebrew reckoning, designating of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the additions to and Daniel as non-canonical yet permissible for catechetical instruction among catechumens, but not for establishing doctrine. Jerome (c. 347–420 AD), tasked with revising the Latin into the around 382–405 AD, translated the apocryphal books—including Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, and 1–2 —under pressure but prefaced them with disclaimers, asserting their absence from the Hebrew canon rendered them unsuitable for confirming doctrines of the faith, likening them instead to writings for edification. He emphasized in his prologue to the books of that only those texts present in Hebrew originals merited canonical status, viewing the Greek additions as secondary. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), however, advocated for their inclusion, listing Tobit, Judith, two books of , , Sirach, and Baruch (along with additions to and ) as integral to the canon in On Christian Doctrine (composed c. 396–397 AD and revised c. 426 AD), grounding their authority in the Septuagint's longstanding use within the church and its alignment with , despite acknowledging debates over certain texts like . This endorsement influenced North African synods, such as those at Hippo (393 AD) and (397 AD), where he participated. Such divergences among prominent Fathers—spanning rejection based on linguistic and Jewish precedents to acceptance via communal usage—underscore the absence of a fixed early consensus, with decisions often hinging on criteria like Hebrew versus liturgical integration, rather than uniform empirical validation of inspiration.

Protestant Reformation's Rejection

During the Protestant in the , reformers reevaluated the , rejecting the Old Testament —books such as Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, and 1-2 Maccabees—as divinely inspired Scripture. , a central figure, included these texts in his 1534 German translation but segregated them in a distinct section between the Old and New Testaments, explicitly stating in his : "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." This positioning reflected Luther's view that while the Apocrypha offered historical and moral insights into intertestamental , they lacked the authoritative status of the due to their Greek origins and absence from the Hebrew canon. Reformers cited multiple evidentiary grounds for exclusion, rooted in appeals to the Hebrew Bible's scope as preserved by Jewish tradition, which omitted these works by the close of the first century CE. The contains no direct quotations from the , unlike frequent citations from the protocanonical , suggesting early Christians did not regard them as prophetic or inspired. Internal content raised further concerns: historical inaccuracies, such as misdated events in Judith and promotion of superstitious practices like fish gall for eye cures in Tobit, contradicted the doctrinal coherence expected of Scripture. Doctrinally, passages like 12:43-46, endorsing prayers and sacrifices for the dead, were seen as incompatible with Protestant emphases on justification by faith alone and the sufficiency of Christ's , without need for post-mortem . This rejection crystallized in confessional documents, such as the (1646), which asserted: "The books commonly called , not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God." Similar positions appeared in Lutheran confessions like the (1577) and Reformed standards, prioritizing texts with verifiable prophetic attestation and apostolic endorsement. The Catholic Council of Trent's 1546 decree affirming these books as canonical, with anathemas against deniers, represented a counter-reaction to challenges rather than an innovation, as prior usage varied among like , who translated the but distinguished the . By the , most Protestant Bibles omitted the from printing for practical reasons, solidifying their non-canonical status while occasionally recommending them for supplementary edification.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Affirmation

The affirms the —namely Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (including the ), 1 , 2 , and the Greek and Esther—as integral to the canon, comprising 46 books in total. This affirmation traces to early regional synods, such as the in 393 AD and the in 397 AD and 419 AD, which listed these books alongside the protocanonical texts as Scripture to be read in churches. These councils reflected the widespread use of the in liturgy and patristic writings, where figures like Augustine endorsed their inspirational status without distinction from Hebrew-origin books. The Council of Trent in 1546 provided dogmatic definition, anathematizing denial of these books' canonicity in response to Protestant reformers' exclusion based on the narrower Hebrew canon. Trent's decree upheld their equality with other Scriptures for doctrine, refuting claims of later addition by citing pre-existing tradition evidenced in the Vulgate and liturgical practice. This stance persists in official Catholic Bibles, such as the Nova Vulgata, where the deuterocanonicals are integrated without segregation. Eastern Orthodox Churches affirm the as canonical, drawing from the Septuagint's fuller collection used by early Greek-speaking Christians, but their canon extends beyond the Catholic list to include , , the , and , with often appended for edification. Unlike the Catholic dogmatic pronouncement at Trent, Orthodox affirmation lacks a singular but aligns with synodal traditions, such as the of in 1672, which upheld the broader Septuagint-derived canon against Calvinist challenges. These books hold authoritative weight in Orthodox theology and liturgy, though some patristic and modern voices assign them secondary status relative to protocanonical texts due to varying manuscript attestation. The divergence in scope between Catholic and Orthodox canons stems from regional liturgical customs and the absence of a universally binding Orthodox decree equivalent to Trent, yet both traditions reject Protestant reduction to the 39-book Hebrew canon, prioritizing the Septuagint's historical role in apostolic-era Christianity. This affirmation supports doctrines like intercession for the dead in 12:46, integrated into Orthodox and Catholic practices without implying novelty.

Content Overview

Catalogue of Old Testament Apocryphal Books

The Old Testament apocryphal books refer to a body of Jewish writings from the Second Temple period, composed primarily between the BCE and 1st century CE, that were incorporated into the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures but omitted from the finalized Hebrew canon around 90 CE. These texts, often in Greek, , or Hebrew originals, include historical narratives, , and additions to canonical books; they were transmitted in early Christian manuscripts like (4th century CE) and (4th century CE) but rejected by in the for lacking Hebrew originals and prophetic authority. Catholic tradition designates seven as deuterocanonical (Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 ) affirmed at the in 1546, while Eastern Orthodox include additional works like . The following catalogue lists principal apocryphal books with approximate dates, authorship based on scholarly consensus, and contents, drawn from inclusions.
BookApproximate DateAuthorDescription
(Greek Ezra)c. 100 BCEUnknownA parallel retelling of parts of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and , incorporating the deuterocanonical story of the three youths debating at Darius's court, emphasizing themes of divine providence and Jewish restoration.
c. 100 CEUnknown (Jewish core with later Christian additions)An apocalyptic work attributed to , containing visions of end times, discussions on theodicy, and messianic expectations; primarily Christian additions postdate the Jewish core material.
Tobitc. 200 BCEUnknownDidactic narrative in about a pious Jew's trials, including blindness and exile, angelic intervention by Raphael, and his son Tobias's journey to retrieve money, emphasizing almsgiving, prayer, and a virtuous marriage.
Judithc. 150 BCEUnknown (anonymous Palestinian Jew)Fictional Hebrew tale of a widow named Judith who uses cunning and faith to behead the Assyrian general to save from siege, highlighting themes of courage, piety, and divine deliverance.
Additions to Estherc. 170-100 BCEUnknown (Egyptian Jews)Six Greek inserts expanding the Hebrew Esther with prayers, dreams, and explicit references to , providing theological depth and explaining the festival of Purim, composed by Egyptian Jews.
c. 100 BCEUnknown (pseudepigraphically attributed to , likely by an Alexandrian Jew)Greek philosophical essays on righteousness, immortality, the soul, and 's wisdom, drawing on Platonic and Stoic influences while defending Jewish faith.
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)c. 200-175 BCEJesus ben SirachHebrew wisdom collection by , translated to Greek c. 135 BCE, covering ethics, Proverbs-like sayings, practical advice on life, and praise of famous ancestors and the high priest Simon.
Baruch (incl. of )c. 150 BCEUnknown (pseudepigraphically attributed to Baruch for main text; unknown for Epistle, attributed to )Exhortations attributed to Jeremiah's scribe Baruch, urging repentance and hope during exile; the warns against Babylonian idolatry and promotes monotheism.
c. 100 BCEUnknown (possibly a Hasidean sympathizer)Hebrew historical account of the (167-134 BCE) against the Seleucids, detailing 's military campaigns, rededication of the Temple, and establishment of Hasmonean independence.
c. 124 BCEUnknown (epitomist abridging Jason of Cyrene)Greek abridgment of of Cyrene's five-volume history, focusing on with miraculous elements, martyrdoms of faithful Jews, and theological reflections on resurrection and divine intervention.
Additions to Daniel: Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, c. 150-100 BCEUnknownGreek expansions to Daniel: the Song of the Three Holy Children is a prayer and hymn sung in the fiery furnace; the tale of Susanna's false accusation and vindication by young Daniel; and Daniel's exposure of false idols Bel and the Dragon, emphasizing faithfulness and God's power.
c. 200-100 BCEUnknownShort attributed to King , expressing contrition for sins and seeking forgiveness, based on the biblical account in 2 Chronicles 33.
This list reflects the 14-15 books common in 16th-century Protestant Bibles like the King James Version (1611), excluding broader such as . Variations exist; for instance, (c. 100 BCE, Ptolemaic Jewish persecutions) and appear in some Orthodox canons but not standard apocrypha.

Key Themes, Narratives, and Literary Forms

The Apocrypha feature recurring themes rooted in Jewish piety, such as guiding human events, the moral value of almsgiving and in averting calamity, faithfulness to covenant amid , and the hope of for the righteous. These motifs underscore a where ethical conduct and reliance on yield deliverance, often contrasted with the futility of and . For instance, texts emphasize of the and divine , portraying as temporary and vindication as eventual. Prominent narratives include the , which recounts the trials of the exiled Tobit and his son ; guided by the angel in disguise, Tobias undertakes a journey to retrieve family funds, marries after exorcising a demon, and restores his father's sight using fish gall, illustrating themes of filial duty, supernatural intervention, and the atoning power of charity. The depicts the widow Judith's ruse to infiltrate the Assyrian camp, seduce and behead General through prayer-fueled courage, thereby routing the enemy besieging and affirming God's use of the weak to confound the strong. The Books of Maccabees narrate the Hasmonean revolt against Seleucid rule, detailing Judas Maccabeus's guerrilla victories, rededication of the Temple in 164 BCE, and martyrdoms endured for observance, as in ' accounts of maternal defiance and fraternal suicides under torture. Literary forms vary, encompassing like Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), a collection of ethical maxims akin to Proverbs, advising on , , and fear of the Lord across 51 chapters composed circa 180 BCE. The Wisdom of Solomon employs Hellenistic philosophical style to extol wisdom as a divine attribute, personified and accessible through , blending Jewish with Platonic influences in poetic discourse. Historical genres predominate in , a sober chronicle of events from 175 to 134 BCE drawing on official records, while offers a more rhetorical epitome with miraculous elements and theological asides. Narrative fiction marks Tobit and Judith, structured as pious romances with folkloric motifs, dramatic irony, and moral edification rather than strict . Additions to canonical books, such as the Prayer of Azariah in Daniel, introduce hymnic and apocalyptic forms, expanding devotional and visionary content.

Theological and Doctrinal Analysis

Claims of Inspiration and Supporting Evidence

Proponents of the ' divine inspiration, primarily within Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, contend that these texts possess the same authoritative status as the protocanonical books due to their reception in the early . This claim rests on the books' inclusion in the , the Greek translation of Jewish scriptures widely used by Hellenistic Jews and early Christians from the onward, which encompassed texts like Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, and 1-2 . Early Church usage of the as a scriptural source is cited as evidence that the guided the Church to recognize inspired writings beyond the Hebrew protocanon, with no explicit rejection by or the apostles despite their familiarity with these texts. Conciliar affirmations provide key historical support, beginning with local synods in . The in 393 AD and the in 397 AD and 419 AD, influenced by figures like , explicitly listed the alongside protocanonical ones as canonical Scripture to be read in churches. These councils' canons were later referenced in ecumenical contexts, such as the in 1442, which enumerated the full canon including deuterocanonicals in its decree for union with Eastern churches. The Catholic Church's dogmatic definition at the in 1546 reaffirmed this, declaring the inspired and on denials, in response to challenges, while Eastern Orthodox synods like in 1672 upheld similar lists based on patristic tradition. Patristic evidence includes citations and allusions treating these books as authoritative. Augustine, in On Christian Doctrine (c. 397 AD), defended their canonicity against doubters like , arguing their reception confirmed inspiration. Other fathers, such as (c. 200 AD) and (c. 250 AD), referenced deuterocanonical texts in homilies and commentaries without distinguishing them as non-scriptural, while (c. 180 AD) drew on Baruch. Liturgical integration further bolsters claims, as these books appeared in lectionaries and were used in worship from the 4th century, evidenced by their presence in major uncial manuscripts like (4th century) and (4th century). New Testament allusions are advanced as indirect confirmation, such as Hebrews 11:35-36 evoking the martyrdoms in 2 Maccabees 7, where women receive back their dead and others endure torture for resurrection hope, suggesting familiarity with the narrative as exemplary faith. Proponents argue this aligns with broader NT dependence on phrasing, implying no demotion of included books. However, these evidential strands—reception, councils, patristics, and allusions—remain contested, as not all early fathers uniformly endorsed inspiration, and the books lack explicit self-claims to divine authorship found in some protocanonical texts like the prophets.

Criticisms of Historical Inaccuracies and Doctrinal Issues

Critics, particularly from Protestant and Jewish traditions, have long pointed to apparent historical inaccuracies in the apocryphal books as evidence against their inspiration, arguing that divine authorship would preclude factual errors inconsistent with verifiable records. For instance, the erroneously portrays , king of from 605–562 BCE, as reigning from , the Assyrian capital destroyed in 612 BCE over a century earlier, and identifies as an Assyrian general under him, conflating distinct empires and timelines. Similarly, the places events during the reign of (727–722 BCE), describing Tobit burying corpses in , yet the city was not yet the Assyrian capital under Assyrian control at that precise juncture, and Tobit's lifespan spans events separated by over two centuries, from the Assyrian exile to Persian times without aligning with known chronologies. These discrepancies extend to other texts, such as Baruch, which claims authorship by Jeremiah's in the BCE but incorporates linguistic and conceptual elements from the centuries later, undermining its purported historical provenance. In , the account of the under conflicts with canonical 2 Chronicles 35 by omitting key priestly roles and altering sequences of events documented in extrabiblical sources like the Babylonian Chronicle. Such errors, critics contend, reflect human composition influenced by oral traditions or later interpolations rather than infallible , as corroborated by the absence of these books from the Hebrew canon finalized by Jewish rabbis around the 1st–2nd centuries CE. On doctrinal grounds, the apocrypha introduces teachings that diverge from or contradict core biblical principles emphasized in the , fueling objections to their authority. The asserts that "almsgiving delivers from death and keeps one from going into the Darkness" (Tobit 4:10; 12:9), implying works like charity can atone for , which conflicts with canonical emphases on grace and faith alone as the means of justification (e.g., Ephesians 2:8–9). Likewise, 12:43–45 describes offering sacrifices for fallen soldiers' sins to expiate , a practice cited by some for but viewed by critics as introducing post-mortem purification absent from and incompatible with sacrificial typology, which points solely to through the . Further doctrinal concerns include the endorsement of magical practices in Tobit, where the angel Raphael instructs the use of fish organs in incantations and rituals for exorcism and healing (Tobit 6:4–8; 8:2–3), practices akin to pagan sorcery condemned in canonical texts like Deuteronomy 18:10–12. The Wisdom of Solomon also posits the pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19–20), a concept echoing Platonic philosophy but rejected in protocanonical scripture, such as Genesis 2:7's account of sequential creation. Protestant reformers like Martin Luther highlighted these as "not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, but...useful and good to read," reflecting their view that such inconsistencies disqualify the books from the inspirational level of the 66-book canon. These critiques prioritize internal consistency and alignment with empirically grounded historical data over traditions that include the apocrypha despite evidentiary gaps.

Specific Debates on Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, and Almsgiving

The passage in 12:39–46 describes discovering idolatrous amulets on fallen Jewish soldiers and offering a on their behalf to atone for their sins, concluding that "it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." Catholic tradition interprets this as evidence for an intermediate state of purification after death, akin to , and for the efficacy of prayers and sacrifices for the deceased, aligning with practices attested in early by the second century. However, the text does not explicitly describe a purgatorial or process of temporal punishment, focusing instead on for via priestly offering, which some argue reflects Jewish piety rather than a developed doctrine of postmortem purification. Protestant reformers, including , acknowledged the passage's apparent support for prayers for the dead but rejected its doctrinal authority due to ' exclusion from the Hebrew canon and perceived contradictions with canonical Scripture, such as 9:27's assertion that judgment follows death without intermediary cleansing. Critics further contend that the book's historical reliability is questionable, as incorporates legendary elements and theological embellishments not found in the more sober , which omits the incident entirely; for instance, the narrative's reliance on an abridged version of Jason of Cyrene's lost work introduces potential inaccuracies in details of the Maccabean campaigns around 164–160 BCE. Eastern Orthodox views similarly affirm prayers for the dead but emphasize toll-houses or aerial purification over a strictly punitive , drawing on the same text while subordinating it to patristic consensus rather than . Regarding almsgiving, Tobit 12:8–9 states that "almsgiving saves from and purges away every ," while Sirach 3:30 likens alms to quenching fire or ransoming from , suggesting charitable acts as a means of expiation. Catholic views these as complementary to grace, illustrating how works of mercy participate in , consistent with New Testament calls like :35–40, without implying self-salvation. Protestant objections highlight an apparent conflict with justification by alone (Ephesians 2:8–9), arguing that such statements promote a meritorious system of works-righteousness foreign to the protocanonical prophets, who emphasize and over or charitable efficacy for sin removal; Tobit's dramatic elements, including angelic interventions and fictional geography, further undermine its inspirational claims. These debates underscore broader canonical disputes, as Jewish tradition never incorporated these books into the Tanakh, predating Christian reliance on them for post-mortem or expiatory doctrines.

New Testament Apocrypha

Definition and Scope Beyond Old Testament Books

The comprise a body of early Christian writings, primarily from the second to fourth centuries CE, that purport to record teachings, events, or revelations associated with Jesus Christ, the apostles, or other figures from the era, but which were ultimately excluded from the canonical . These texts include apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses, often attributed pseudonymously to apostolic authors to lend authority, yet lacking the historical attestation and widespread acceptance afforded to the 27 books of the canon formalized by the late fourth century. In contrast to Old Testament apocrypha—intertestamental Jewish works spanning roughly 400 BCE to 1 CE, such as Tobit or , which some traditions like Roman Catholicism deem deuterocanonical for bridging Hebrew scriptures to the Christian era—the New Testament apocrypha extend beyond this temporal and thematic scope by addressing post-resurrection Christian narratives, doctrinal elaborations, and esoteric interpretations not rooted in the apostolic witness. While Old Testament apocrypha primarily expand on , wisdom literature, and , New Testament counterparts focus on Christological expansions, apostolic missions, and eschatological visions, often incorporating legendary or theologically divergent elements like Gnostic dualism or miracle embellishments absent from canonical accounts. The scope of New Testament apocrypha is delimited by their extracanonical status across Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox traditions, stemming from criteria such as late composition dates (post-100 CE for most), pseudepigraphic authorship, inconsistencies with core Christian doctrines derived from undisputed apostolic writings, and limited citation as scripture by early like or Athanasius. Examples include the Gospel of Thomas (ca. 140–180 CE), emphasizing sayings of with Gnostic leanings; the (ca. 150–200 CE), promoting ; and the (ca. 100–150 CE), detailing afterlife visions. These works, while influential in some sectarian contexts, were systematically rejected during canon formation processes, as evidenced by the (ca. 170 CE) and subsequent synods, prioritizing texts with verifiable apostolic origins and doctrinal harmony.

Major Examples and Their Rejection

Prominent examples of New Testament apocrypha include the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and Apocalypse of Peter, which were composed in the second century and purported to expand on apostolic traditions but failed to meet early church criteria for canonicity. These texts were excluded primarily due to their late dating, pseudepigraphal authorship, doctrinal deviations from emerging orthodox consensus, and limited attestation in early liturgical or doctrinal use. The Gospel of , a collection of 114 sayings attributed to , survives in a Coptic from around 340 AD, with its original composition likely dating to the mid-second century, well after the apostolic era. It exhibits Gnostic tendencies, such as emphasizing secret knowledge and rejecting the material world, which contradicted the incarnational theology affirmed in canonical Gospels. Early church leaders dismissed it as non-apostolic and heretical, with no evidence of widespread acceptance or quotation as scripture before the third century. The Gospel of Peter, discovered in an eighth-century fragment but originating around 150-200 AD, includes docetic elements portraying as not truly suffering on the , aligning with views later condemned as heretical. Bishop Serapion of Antioch, circa 190-210 AD, initially permitted its reading but rejected it upon scrutiny for interpolations promoting unorthodox , noting it deviated from "the right teaching of the Saviour." Its lack of eyewitness origins and contradictions with synoptic accounts further undermined its claims. The , part of the broader from the mid-second century, narrates the conversion and adventures of , emphasizing extreme and female in ministry, including self-baptism and preaching. , around 200 AD, condemned it as forged by a presbyter in Asia Minor to promote women's , which clashed with Pauline , leading to the forger's confession and deposition. Despite regional popularity, its promotion of as salvific and subversion of roles in church order resulted in its exclusion from canonical lists. The , dated to circa 100-150 AD and preserved in fragments, depicts vivid punishments in hell, including for and , but was not universally received due to authorship doubts and diverging from . classified it among "spurious" works in his fourth-century canon survey, reflecting inconsistent early attestation and failure to align with on judgment and mercy. Its temporary use in some Egyptian churches waned as councils prioritized texts with broader and .

Pseudepigrapha in Relation to Apocrypha

Characteristics and Notable Texts

Pseudepigrapha encompass a diverse corpus of Jewish and early Christian writings composed primarily between approximately 300 BCE and 300 CE, characterized by their attribution to prominent biblical figures—such as , Abraham, or the patriarchs—despite being authored pseudonymously by later unknown writers to enhance perceived authority and imitate scriptural style. Unlike the , which include anonymous or pseudonymous works like Tobit or that achieved deuterocanonical status in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, pseudepigrapha were universally excluded from Jewish and Protestant canons due to their overt fictional attributions, doctrinal divergences from , and lack of attestation in early Hebrew manuscripts. Common literary forms include apocalyptic revelations predicting eschatological events, ethical testaments offering moral exhortations, expansions of Old Testament narratives with legendary embellishments, and blending with piety. These texts often claim to reveal hidden knowledge or divine secrets purportedly conveyed to ancient worthies, reflecting intertestamental Jewish concerns with angelology, cosmology, and messianic expectations amid Hellenistic influences. Authorship pseudepigraphy served not merely as deception but as a rhetorical device to connect new compositions to revered traditions, though this practice contributed to their rejection by rabbinic authorities compiling the Tanakh around 90 CE at Jamnia, who prioritized texts with verifiable prophetic chains of transmission. Preservation varies: many survive in fragmentary Greek, Latin, or Slavonic translations, with full versions like 1 Enoch extant only in Ethiopic Ge'ez via the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which uniquely canonizes some despite broader Christian skepticism. Among the most notable Old Testament pseudepigrapha are the (1 Enoch), a composite apocalyptic text from roughly 300–100 BCE comprising five sections on watchers, parables, astronomical book, dreams, and epistle, influential for its detailed hierarchies and quoted in Jude 1:14–15. The , dated to the mid-second century BCE (circa 160–150 BCE), retells Genesis through Exodus in a chronological framework of 49-year periods, emphasizing adherence and Mosaic revelation on Sinai, preserved in Ethiopic and Hebrew fragments from . Other significant works include the Testaments of the Twelve , a collection of deathbed exhortations from Jacob's sons (likely second century BCE with Christian interpolations), warning against vices like envy and promoting virtues amid ethical dualism; the , a first-century CE visionary ascent narrative pseudepigraphically linked to the , detailing heavenly tours and critiques of ; and the , expansions on Genesis 3–5 (first century BCE–CE) depicting post-Edenic penitence, Satan's fall, and afterlife glimpses in Latin and Greek recensions. These texts, while non-canonical, illuminate Second Temple Judaism's theological diversity but face criticism for anachronisms, such as post-exilic references in purported pre-flood attributions.

Key Differences in Authorship and Canonical Consideration

The pseudepigrapha, by definition, encompass ancient Jewish and early Christian texts that falsely attribute authorship to prominent biblical figures such as Enoch, Moses, or the patriarchs, a practice intended to confer prophetic authority on later compositions typically dating from the third century BCE to the second century CE. In contrast, the biblical apocrypha (or deuterocanonical books) consist primarily of anonymous or collectively attributed works from the intertestamental period, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees or Tobit, composed between approximately 200 BCE and 100 CE without explicit claims to authorship by pre-exilic Hebrew prophets or antediluvian sages. This distinction arises from the pseudepigrapha's deliberate pseudonymity, often employing narrative frames to insert revelations into ancient timelines, whereas apocryphal texts more frequently present historical, wisdom, or narrative content tied to Hellenistic Jewish contexts without such retroactive ascriptions. Regarding canonical consideration, the apocrypha achieved partial acceptance within Christian traditions, forming part of the Septuagint translation (completed by the second century BCE) and affirmed as scripture by early church councils including Hippo in 393 CE and Carthage in 397 CE, with formal ratification at the Council of Trent in 1546 for Roman Catholics, though rejected by Jewish authorities around 90 CE and later Protestants citing the Hebrew canon. Pseudepigrapha, however, received no such endorsement across major Jewish or Christian bodies, excluded from the Hebrew Bible, Vulgate, and Reformation-era canons due to evident late authorship, lack of attestation in early rabbinic or patristic lists, and inconsistencies with protocanonical texts. While some pseudepigraphal works like 1 Enoch influenced Second Temple Judaism and were quoted in the New Testament (e.g., Jude 1:14-15), their non-inclusion stems from criteria emphasizing apostolic or prophetic origins verifiable through manuscript traditions and communal usage, absent in pseudepigrapha which proliferated amid diverse sectarian writings. This exclusion persists universally, distinguishing pseudepigrapha as extracanonical supplements rather than contested scripture like the apocrypha.

Modern Scholarship and Developments

Textual Criticism and Archaeological Insights

Textual criticism of the Biblical apocrypha involves analyzing surviving manuscripts to reconstruct original readings, addressing variants across Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin traditions. Unlike , apocryphal texts often lack the abundance of Hebrew manuscripts, relying heavily on the for Greek versions and later translations like Jerome's , which incorporated Latin renderings from diverse sources. Scholars identify significant textual divergences, such as the shorter Hebrew fragments of Tobit versus the expanded Greek forms, indicating possible expansions or abbreviations during transmission. Critical editions, such as those in the series, collate these variants to approximate earlier forms, revealing influences from Hellenistic Jewish contexts. Archaeological discoveries, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls unearthed between 1947 and 1956 near , provide pivotal manuscript evidence for apocryphal books, dating from approximately 250 BCE to 68 CE. Fragments of Tobit in and Hebrew, along with multiple copies of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in Hebrew, confirm these texts' antiquity and circulation within , predating Christian usage. The scrolls also include pseudepigraphal works like and Jubilees, with over ten Enoch manuscripts, underscoring their popularity among the Qumran community despite exclusion from later Jewish canons. These findings refute claims that were late Christian inventions, as Hebrew originals establish Jewish provenance for Tobit and Sirach, though textual instability—evident in variant readings—suggests fluid editing practices. Insights from these sources highlight causal factors in textual evolution: sectarian preferences at Qumran favored esoteric apocrypha, while broader Jewish traditions marginalized them post-70 CE, influencing rabbinic canon formation. Comparative analysis with Masoretic texts shows apocryphal works bridging protocanonical and extracanonical literature, but without uniform attestation in all Jewish libraries, supporting varied acceptance rather than universal authority. Modern radiocarbon dating of scrolls corroborates paleographic estimates, affirming composition dates like Sirach's circa 180 BCE, yet reveals no archaeological consensus on canonicity, as Qumran's eclectic collection mixes revered and rejected texts.

Recent Debates and Discoveries in Apocryphal Studies

A 1,600-year-old Greek papyrus fragment, deciphered in 2023 and announced in 2024, represents the earliest surviving manuscript of an apocryphal infancy gospel, specifically containing episodes from the describing ' childhood miracles. This 5th-century CE artifact, discovered in a 19th-century collection at the State and University Library, includes text such as Jesus animating clay sparrows, offering direct evidence of the text's early dissemination in Greek-speaking Christian communities despite its exclusion from the canon. Scholars note its paleographic features align with dated papyri from , supporting an origin around 400-500 CE, which challenges assumptions about the limited circulation of such non-canonical narratives before the 6th century. In June 2025, application of to and handwriting analysis of fragments indicated that many, including those preserving apocryphal works like the and Jubilees, could date to the 3rd century BCE—potentially 50-100 years earlier than prior estimates based on paleography alone. This revision, derived from models trained on known samples, suggests broader pre-Christian Jewish engagement with these texts, which blend apocalyptic visions and legal expansions not found in the . While confirming the scrolls' authenticity against forgery claims, the findings intensify debates over their sectarian origins, with some researchers linking them more firmly to Essene communities based on empirical handwriting clusters rather than speculative interpretations. Scholarly debates persist on the interpretive value of apocryphal texts amid popular fascination with "lost gospels," as highlighted in Michael J. Kruger's 2025 analysis, which attributes viral interest to media sensationalism rather than textual merit, noting that books demonstrate superior attestation and doctrinal consistency. Concurrently, the More New Testament Apocrypha series, with volumes published in 2020 and 2023 compiling 28 previously untranslated or updated texts from like those at , underscores efforts to catalog apocryphal literature systematically, though critics argue such expansions risk conflating diverse 2nd-5th century compositions without resolving authorship pseudepigraphy. These developments reflect a tension in apocryphal studies between empirical evidence and theological evaluations of , with conservative scholars emphasizing the absence of Hebrew originals for as grounds for non-canonical status.

Reception and Impact

Role in Biblical Editions and Liturgical Use

In Protestant Biblical editions, the apocryphal books are typically excluded from the canon, though early translations often appended them for historical or edifying value. The original 1611 King James Version positioned these books between the Old and New Testaments, reflecting their non-canonical status while preserving access for readers. Martin Luther's 1534 German Bible similarly segregated them into a distinct section, prefaced with the declaration that they "are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good for reading," influencing subsequent Protestant printings until the 19th century when economic pressures led to their omission from many editions. Catholic editions integrate the —such as Tobit, Judith, , Sirach, Baruch, and 1-2 —seamlessly within the , as reaffirmed by the in 1546, which decreed their canonical equivalence to protocanonical texts to counter Reformation challenges. Eastern Orthodox Bibles incorporate these alongside additional texts like 3 and , with canonical lists varying by tradition but generally affirming their scriptural authority. Regarding liturgical use, Roman Catholic lectionaries prescribe readings from for , including on Sundays and Sirach during , embedding them in the liturgical cycle since the post-Vatican II reforms of while maintaining continuity with earlier practices. Eastern Orthodox services draw extensively from these books, employing them in , , and festal readings to illuminate theological themes, as their Septuagint-derived canon prioritizes liturgical over strict Hebrew provenance. Anglican traditions, per the and historic Books of , appoint apocryphal lessons for daily offices—such as during Advent—valuing them for moral instruction without doctrinal weight, a practice retained in lectionaries like the 2019 Book of .

Cultural, Artistic, and Theological Influences

The deuterocanonical books of the Biblical apocrypha have exerted significant theological influence within Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, where they are considered canonical and inform doctrines such as prayers for the dead, drawn from 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, which describes Judas Maccabeus offering sacrifices for fallen soldiers to atone for their sins. This passage has been cited by Catholic theologians as scriptural support for purgatory and intercessory practices, though Protestant reformers like Martin Luther relegated these books to an appendix in his 1534 Bible translation, viewing them as useful for edification but lacking full inspirational authority due to historical and doctrinal inconsistencies with the protocanonical texts. Similarly, the Book of Wisdom's emphasis on the soul's immortality (Wisdom 3:1-4) has shaped patristic writings on eschatology, bridging Hellenistic philosophy with Jewish thought during the Second Temple period. Pseudepigraphal works like the have impacted early , particularly in understandings of angelic hierarchies, the fall of the Watchers (Enoch 6-16 paralleling Genesis 6:1-4), and apocalyptic judgment, with direct allusions in the (Jude 1:14-15 quoting Enoch 1:9). This text influenced Second Temple Judaism's demonology and messianic expectations, preserving traditions of 's heavenly ascent that informed later Kabbalistic and Ethiopian Orthodox teachings, where 1 Enoch remains canonical. However, its non-inclusion in the and most Christian canons stems from questions of authorship and alignment with prophetic standards, limiting its doctrinal weight in Western traditions. Artistically, apocryphal narratives have inspired numerous visual depictions in Western art, including Rembrandt's "The Angel Leaving Tobit and His Family" (1637) based on the , and Caravaggio's "" (1599) from the , highlighting themes of divine intervention and female heroism that resonated in . These stories, rich in dramatic elements, also appear in medieval illuminated manuscripts and frescoes, such as scenes from Susanna in Daniel, influencing iconographic traditions in Catholic churches despite Protestant iconoclasm. In literature and music, the permeates cultural expressions; Shakespeare's "" draws on the Apocryphal for plot motifs, while Handel's "Susanna" (1749) adapts the deuterocanonical addition to Daniel, embedding these tales in Enlightenment-era compositions. Chaucer's references in "" and Tolstoy's moral reflections in works like "" reflect the apocrypha's role in shaping ethical discourse, with over 20 allusions in Shakespeare alone underscoring their integration into English literary canon before 19th-century Protestant editions excised them. Culturally, these texts bridge intertestamental history, illuminating Hellenistic Jewish life and influencing folklore, such as Enochian traditions in esoteric movements from the onward.

Ongoing Controversies in Ecumenical Dialogue

In ecumenical dialogues between Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, the canonical status of the deuterocanonical books—known as the Apocrypha to Protestants—continues to pose a significant obstacle to doctrinal convergence. Protestants maintain a 39-book Old Testament aligned with the Hebrew canon, excluding books like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1-2 Maccabees, on grounds of their absence from the Jewish canon finalized around the first century AD and limited quotation in the New Testament. Catholics, affirming the decrees of the Council of Trent in 1546, uphold these seven books and additions to Daniel and Esther as inspired Scripture, citing their liturgical use in early Christianity and inclusion in the Septuagint translation. This divergence complicates agreements on doctrines such as prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) and purgatory, which Protestants reject partly due to reliance on these texts, hindering progress beyond shared affirmations like the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification. Efforts to bridge the gap, such as ecumenical Bible editions including the deuterocanonicals as an appendix (e.g., the or with Apocrypha), facilitate shared reading but fail to reconcile interpretive authority. Protestant participants in dialogues, including those under the Pontifical for Promoting Christian Unity, often prioritize sola scriptura with the 66-book canon, viewing deuterocanonical support for Catholic practices as secondary or erroneous, while Catholics argue that and church councils validate the broader canon. Recent informal debates, such as those in 2022 between Catholic apologists and Protestant scholars, underscore persistent contention over historical evidence like early ' varying acceptance (e.g., Jerome's reservations versus Augustine's affirmation). Dialogues between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches encounter related but distinct issues, as both traditions accept the deuterocanonicals but diverge on additional texts like , , and the , which Orthodox Bibles include as canonical while Catholics relegate them to appendices. Orthodox synods, such as in 1672, affirmed a broader without rigid closure, reflecting jurisdictional variations (e.g., Russian versus Greek traditions), which contrasts with Catholic uniformity post-Trent. These differences surface in joint theological commissions, where discussions on scriptural must navigate undefined Orthodox boundaries, potentially complicating mutual recognition of sacraments or scripture in unity efforts. Despite shared rejection of the Protestant canon, the lack of a universally binding Orthodox list—absent a equivalent to Trent—sustains low-level tensions in bilateral talks. Overall, these canonical disputes underscore a core ecumenical challenge: reconciling divergent views on revelation's extent without subordinating one tradition's historical judgments, as Protestant emphasis on Hebrew origins clashes with patristic and conciliar precedents favored by Catholics and Orthodox. Progress remains incremental, with dialogues acknowledging the books' value for moral instruction (per Article VI of the Anglican ) but deferring resolution amid broader priorities like ethical cooperation.

References

  1. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-apocrypha
  2. https://faith.edu/faith-pulpit/posts/why-we-reject-the-apocrypha/
  3. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/the-deuterocanonical-books.html
  4. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
  5. https://www.crossway.org/articles/should-protestants-read-the-apocrypha/
  6. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/should-protestants-read-the-apocrypha/
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/apocrypha
  8. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/
  9. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=questions_101
  10. https://derekdemars.com/2021/07/19/the-apocrypha-in-a-nutshell/
  11. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
  12. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha
  13. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/01/apocryphal-deuterocanonical-books/
  14. https://www.americanbible.org/bible-resource/what-are-the-apocrypha-and-deuterocanonical-books/
  15. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0007.xml
  16. https://repository.globethics.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12424/157395/n15.3_Beckwith.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  17. https://www.integrityseminary.net/blog/the-intertestamental-period-a-scholarly-exploration-of-biblical-history
  18. https://www.bartehrman.com/apocrypha/
  19. https://evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/the-apocrypha
  20. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/intertestamental-jewish-apocrypha
  21. https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol27/iss1/9/
  22. https://www.livestransforming.com/intertestamental-sources/
  23. https://ehrmanblog.org/more-books-of-the-apocrypha-wisdom-of-solomon-sirach-and-baruch/
  24. https://readingacts.com/2018/02/15/james-and-the-wisdom-of-sirach/
  25. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hellenistic-jewish-literature
  26. https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=faculty_articles
  27. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/books-missing-from-old-testament/question8-christians-apocrypha-scripture.cfm
  28. https://evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/why-are-the-apocrypha-in-the-septuagint
  29. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/books-missing-from-old-testament/question3-history-old-testament-apocrypha.cfm
  30. https://bible805.com/how-we-got-the-apocrypha-and-its-relationship-to-the-septuagint/
  31. https://bibleproject.com/articles/why-deuterocanon-apocrypha-some-bibles-and-not-others/
  32. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/jerome-completes-vulgate
  33. https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx
  34. https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content?locale=en_US
  35. https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/19-tobit-nets.pdf
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43711062
  37. https://academic.oup.com/book/59799/chapter/511229957
  38. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/61539/chapter/537136718
  39. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm
  40. https://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/05/29/josephus-historical-evidence-of-the-old-testament-canon/
  41. https://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html
  42. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
  43. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm
  44. https://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html
  45. https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/10/steve-ray-explains-luther-and-apocrypha.html
  46. https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/reasons-why-the-apocrypha-does-not-belong-in-the-bible/
  47. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/westminster-confession-faith
  48. https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-the-council-of-trent-inconsistent-in-its-treatment-of-the-deuterocanonical-books
  49. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-protestants-edified-apocrypha/
  50. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/defending-the-deuterocanonicals-996
  51. https://taylormarshall.com/2025/02/church-fathers-who-accepted-deuterocanonical-books.html
  52. https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-church-add-the-deuterocanonical-books-to-the-bible-at-the-council-of-trent
  53. https://jimmyakin.com/defending-the-deuterocanonicals
  54. https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2022/04/why-are-protestant-catholic-and-orthodox-bibles-different/
  55. https://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why-orthodox-bible-is-different-from-catholic.php
  56. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/06/03/orthodoxy-on-the-deuterocanon/
  57. https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-catholics-and-orthodox-have-the-same-bible
  58. https://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html
  59. https://sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm
  60. https://renew.org/what-books-are-in-the-apocrypha-a-summary-of-each-book/
  61. https://www.anthonydelgado.net/blog-1/a-biblical-theology-of-the-apocrypha
  62. https://beacon.nwciowa.edu/why-the-apocrypha-matters/
  63. https://paulstroble.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/bible-in-a-year-tobit-judith-1-4-maccabees/
  64. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/books-missing-from-old-testament/question2-contents-apocrypha.cfm
  65. https://anglicancompass.com/what-is-the-apocrypha-and-why-should-you-read-it/
  66. https://ehrmanblog.org/introducing-the-old-testament-apocrypha/
  67. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-old-testament-canon
  68. https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-accept-the-apocrypha-as-inspired
  69. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/technology/is-hebrews-1135-37-a-proof-for-the-inclusion-of-the-apocrypha-to-the-canon/
  70. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/protestantisms-old-testament-problem
  71. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86910/did-the-1st-century-church-accept-the-deuterocanonical-books
  72. https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/
  73. https://frontroyalchurchofchrist.com/the-truth-about-the-apocrypha-and-the-lost-books-of-the-bible/
  74. https://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphamainpage/apocryphaarticle4/
  75. https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/purgatory-and-2-maccabees-1239-45/
  76. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible
  77. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/the-perspicuity-of-2-maccabees-12-on-purgatory/
  78. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/luther-purgatory-quite-plain-in-2-maccabees.html
  79. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95182/how-historically-accurate-are-the-first-3-books-of-the-maccabees
  80. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2016/11/10/does-2-maccabees-approve-of-prayers-for-the-dead-no/
  81. https://intertextual.bible/text/sirach-3.30-tobit-12.9
  82. https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/almsgiving-and-atonement-for-sin
  83. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/armstrong-vs-collins-walls-8-heretical-tobit-alms-salvation.html
  84. https://rsc.byu.edu/how-new-testament-came-be/false-gospels
  85. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-difficulties/question1-what-is-the-new-testament-apocrypha.cfm
  86. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-apocrypha/
  87. https://apocryphicity.ca/2020/10/09/lost-gospels-and-other-christian-apocrypha-new-discoveries-and-new-perspectives/
  88. https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=verbum
  89. https://crossexamined.org/why-the-gospel-of-thomas-isnt-in-the-bible/
  90. https://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Peter.html
  91. https://www.gotquestions.org/Acts-of-Paul-and-Thecla.html
  92. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-thomas/
  93. https://isjesusalive.com/the-apocryphal-gospels-were-rejected-by-the-church-for-good-reasons/
  94. https://carm.org/lost-books/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-gospel-of-thomas/
  95. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/10/gospel-of-thomas-isnt-an-authentic-gospel.html
  96. https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-church-suppress-the-gospel-of-thomas-because-it-was-afraid-of-what-it-contained
  97. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-peter/
  98. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Acts-of-Paul
  99. https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/apocryphal-acts-paul-thecla/
  100. https://www.gotquestions.org/apocalypse-of-Peter.html
  101. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-aberrant-view-of-the-afterlife-in-the-apocalypse-of-peter/
  102. https://julianspriggs.co.uk/pages/Pseudepigrapha
  103. https://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html
  104. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec3.12043
  105. https://nijaykgupta.substack.com/p/studying-early-judaism-the-old-testament
  106. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Pseudepigrapha
  107. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/books-missing-from-old-testament/question10-old-testament-pseudepigrapha.cfm
  108. https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/
  109. https://themasterschurch.net/pseudepigrapha/
  110. https://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha-why-are-these-rejected-by-most/
  111. https://davidwilber.com/articles/the-old-testament-canon-and-the-pseudepigrapha
  112. https://biblehub.com/q/what_is_the_pseudepigrapha.htm
  113. https://www.academia.edu/7893817/_Textual_Criticism_Apocrypha_and_Deuterocanonical_Books_
  114. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha
  115. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-dead-sea-scrolls/
  116. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manuscript-deciphered-jesus-christ-childhood-oldest-written-record-experts-say/
  117. https://www.dw.com/en/what-the-earliest-manuscript-about-jesus-infancy-reveals/a-69517684
  118. https://www.the-independent.com/news/science/archaeology/dead-sea-scrolls-mystery-ai-manuscripts-b2765102.html
  119. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/genuine-jesus-counterfeit-christs/
  120. https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2021/3/20/more-new-testament-apocrypha-yes-please
  121. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/how-different-traditions-treat-the-apocrypha
  122. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
  123. https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/apocrypha-luther-via-catholic-answers.html
  124. https://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Index-Deuterocanonicals.htm
  125. https://www.stots.edu/article/The%2BOld%2BTestament%2BApocrypha
  126. https://anglicancompass.com/apocrypha/
  127. https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html
  128. https://soh.church/what-is-the-book-of-enoch/
  129. https://rsc.byu.edu/creation-sinai/enoch-old-testament-beyond
  130. https://davidschrock.com/2024/05/02/what-should-we-do-with-1-enoch-a-biblical-approach-to-extra-biblical-literature/
  131. https://stonedcampbelldisciple.com/2017/09/22/discovery-at-the-museum-how-i-discovered-the-apocrypha-through-art/
  132. https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/librarycollections/2020/04/30/apocryphal-pictures/
  133. https://journal.christianscience.com/issues/1993/9/111-9/the-apocrypha-historical-link-between-the-testaments
  134. https://andynaselli.com/the-value-of-the-apocrypha
  135. https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/thoughts-on-the-churchs-old-testament-canon/
  136. https://test.schoolhouseteachers.com/data-file-Documents/common-english-bible-with-apocrypha.pdf
  137. https://www.videobible.com/deuterocanonical
  138. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/debate-should-christians-accept-the-protestant-old-testament-canon
  139. https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2021/05/18/orthodoxy-on-the-deuterocanon/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.