The Apocrypha: Inspired of God?
by Wayne Jackson
The disputed books
The “Apocrypha” is a collection of documents,
generally produced between the 2nd century
B.C. and the 1st century A.D., which were not a
part of the original Old Testament canon. The
names of these books are: I Esdras, II Esdras,
The Rest of Esther, Song of the Three Holy
Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the
Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I
Maccabees, and II Maccabees. The last seven of
these are incorporated into Roman Catholic
editions of the Bible. The Catholic Council of
Trent (1546) affirmed the canonicity of these
books, as found in the Latin Vulgate, and
condemned those who reject them.
The title, “Apocrypha,” is a transliterated form
of the term apokruphos, meaning “hidden.” A
plural form of the word is used in Colossians
2:3, where Paul declares that all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge are “hidden” in Christ.
The adjective “apocryphal” has come to be
applied to those books that do not bear the marks
of divine inspiration. There are several reasons
why the Apocrypha is to be rejected as part of
the Bible.
General Principles
1. There is abundant evidence that none of
these books was ever received into the
canon (that which conforms to “rule”) of the
Hebrew Old Testament. Though they appear
in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament -
known as LXX), that is not necessarily a
reliable criterion. Professor G.T. Manley
notes: “[These books] do not appear to have
been included at first in the LXX [3rd/2nd
centuries B.C.], but they found their way
gradually into later copies, being inserted in
places that seemed appropriate...” (The New
Bible Handbook, Chicago: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1962, p. 39).
2. The apocryphal books are not in those most
ancient works which allude to the Old
Testament Scriptures. For example:
(a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of
Alexandria (20 B.C. - A.D. 50), wrote
prolifically and frequently quoted the Old
Testament, yet he never cited the
Apocrypha, nor did he even mention these
documents.
(b) Josephus (A.D. 37-95) rejected them. He
wrote: “We have not an innumerable
multitude of books among us, disagreeing
from and contradicting one another, but only
twenty-two books, which contain the records
of all the past times; which are justly
believed to be divine...” (Against Apion 1.8).
By combining several Old Testament
narratives into a “book,” the thirty-nine of
our current editions become the twenty-two
alluded to by Josephus.
(c) The most ancient list of Old Testament
books is that which was made by Melito of
Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the
apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).
(d) In the early 3rd century A.D., neither
Origin nor his contemporary, Tertullian,
recognized the books of the Apocrypha as
being canonical.
(e) Though some of the apocryphal books
were being used in the church services by
the 5th century A.D., they were read only by
those who held inferior offices in the church
(see: T.H. Horne, Critical Introduction to
the Holy Scriptures, Philadelphia:
Whetham & Son, 1841, Vol. I, p. 436).
3. The apocryphal books were produced in an
era when no inspired documents were been
given by God. Malachi concludes his
narrative in the Old Testament by urging
Israel: “Remember ye the law of Moses my
servant, which I commanded unto him in
Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and
ordinances.” He then projects four centuries
into the future and prophesied: “Behold, I
will send you Elijah the prophet before the
great and terrible day of Jehovah come...”
(Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming
of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17).
The implication of Malachi’s prophecy is
that no prophet would arise from God until
the coming of John. This excludes the
apocryphal writings.
Josephus confirms this when he declares:
“It is true, our history has been written
since Artaxerxes very particularly, but
has not been esteemed of the like
authority with the former by our
forefathers, because there has not been
an exact succession of prophets since
that time.”
He further says that no one “has been so
bold as either to add any thing to them, to
take any thing from them, or to make any
change in them . . .” (Against Apion 1.8).
F.F. Bruce contended that there “is no
evidence that these books were ever
regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether
inside or outside Palestine, whether they
read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek” (The
Books and the Parchments, London:
Pickering & Inglis, 1950, p. 157).
4. Jesus Christ and His inspired New
Testament penmen quoted from, or alluded
to, the writings and events of the Old
Testament profusely. In fact, some 1,000
quotations or allusions from thirty-five of
the thirty-nine Old Testament books are
found in the New Testament record. And
yet, significantly, not once is any of these
apocryphal books quoted or even explicitly
referred to by the Lord, or by any New
Testament writer. Noted scholar Emile
Schurer argued that this is really remarkable
since most of the New Testament habitually
quoted from the LXX (Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1894, Vol. I,
99).
“Despite the fact that New
Testament writers quote largely
from the Septuagint rather than from
the Hebrew Old Testament, there is
not a single clear-cut case of a
citation from any of the fourteen
apocryphal books . . . . The most
that can be said is that the New
Testament writers show
acquaintance with these fourteen
books and perhaps allude to them
indirectly, but in no case do they
quote them as inspired Scripture or
cite them as authority” (Merrill F.
Unger, Introductory Guide to the
Old Testament, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1951, p. 101).
5. Finally, it must be observed that the
apocryphal books, unlike the canonical
books of the Old Testament, make no direct
claims of being inspired of God. Not once is
there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language
like, “the word of the Lord came unto me,
saying.” In fact, some of the documents
actually confess non-inspiration! In the
Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states:
“Ye are intreated therefore to read with
favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in
any parts of what we have laboured to
interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the
phrases” (The Apocrypha, New York:
Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1894).
6. Too, there is the matter of literary style.
Dr. Raymond Surburg has written:
“When a comparison is instituted of the
style of the Apocrypha with the style of the
Biblical Hebrew Old Testament writings,
there is a considerable inferiority, shown by
the stiffness, lack of originality and
artificiality of expression characterizing the
apocryphal books” (The Christian News,
November 24, 1980, p. 7).
Evidence negating inspiration
The Apocrypha contains a great variety of
historical, geographical, chronological, and
moral errors. Professor William Green of
Princeton wrote: “The books of Tobit and Judith
abound in geographical, chronological, and
historical mistakes...” (General Introduction to
the Old Testament, New York: Scribner’s &
Sons, 1899, p. 195). A critical study of the
Apocrypha’s contents clearly reveals that it
could not be the product of the Spirit of God.
The following examples are ample evidence of
this:
1. Rather that the creation being spoken into
existence from nothing by the word of
Almighty God, as affirmed in the Scriptures
(Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3), the
Apocrypha has God creating the world out
of “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon
11:17).
2. According to the prophet Jeremiah,
Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the
tenth day, fifth month, or the nineteenth year
of his reign (Jer. 52:12-13). Subsequent to
this, both the prophet and his scribe, Baruch,
were taken into Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7).
According to the Apocrypha, however, at
this very time Baruch was in Babylon
(Baruch 1:1-2).
3. There are two contradictory accounts of the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded
enemy of the Jews. One narrative records
that Antiochus and his company were “cut
to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the
treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (II
Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version
in the same book states that Antiochus was
“taken with a noisome sickness” and so
“ended his life among the mountains by a
most piteous fate in a strange land” (II
Maccabees 9:19-29).
4. Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11),
yet, supposedly, he was alive back when
Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931
B.C.), and then still around when the
Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.)óa
span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5)!
5. The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous
doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul,
suggesting that the kind of body one now
has is determined by the character of his
soul in a previous life. “Now I was a goodly
child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay
rather, being good, I came into a body
undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).
The foregoing was a common belief among
heathen peoples, but certainly it is contrary
to the biblical view that the soul of man is
formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-
16; Zech. 12:1).
6. The Apocrypha teaches that prayer may be
made for the dead. “Wherefore he made the
propitiation for them that had died, that they
might be released from their sins” (II
Maccabees 12:45). Roman Catholics cite
this passage to find support for their dogma
of praying for the dead to be released from
purgatory (obviously there’s no New
Testament passage to buttress the notion),
but the effort is vain.
7. The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone
for his sins by the giving of alms. “It is
better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms
doth deliver from death, and it shall purge
away all sin” (Tobit 3:9).
8. The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far
below that of the Bible. Note some
examples:
(a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful
act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who,
being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon
his sword, choosing “rather to die nobly”
than to fall into the hands of his enemy. He
was not mortally wounded, however, and so
threw himself down from a wall and
“manfully” died among the crowds (14:41-
43).
(b) It describes magical potions which are
alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-
17).
(c) The murder of the men of Shechem
(Gen. 34), an act of violence which is
condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6-
7), is commended and is described as an act
of God (Judith 9:2-9).
These, along with various other considerations,
lead only to the conclusion that the Apocrypha
cannot be included in the volume of sacred
Scripture.
Reasons For Rejecting The Apocrypha From
The Canon
The books were never included in the
Hebrew canon.
Josephus expressly excludes them.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher in Alexandria
(ca. 20 BC – AD 40) quoted the O.T.
Scriptures very frequently, yet never quoted
the Apocrypha nor even mentioned these
books.
Targums (Aramaic paraphrases) were
provided for the canonical books but were
not provided for the Apocrypha.
These books are never quoted in the New
Testament
Most of the Apocrypha material existed and
was likely incorporated in Septuagint
editions in the New Testament period, yet it
is never cited by Jesus or the apostles. The
oldest copies of the Septuagint now in
existence date from the fourth century AD,
plenty of time for them to have been
incorporated in later editions.
NT references rather allude to the commonly
accepted Hebrew canon.
Christian tradition offers no real support for
accepting the Apocrypha as canonical.
These books are not included in the
canonical lists of the early centuries.
Jerome expressly supported the strict
Hebrew canon and emphatically rejected the
Apocrypha as secondary.
Books of the Apocrypha were considered
suitable for reading and instruction but they
were not considered authoritative in the
early centuries.
The Apocrypha bears no internal marks of
inspiration.
No Apocrypha writer actually claims
inspiration; indeed, some disclaim it.
These books contain historical,
geographical, and chronological errors.
Doctrinally, the books at times contradict
the canonical Scriptures.
Stylistically, the books are inferior to the
canonical Scriptures.
Stories in the Apocrypha contain some
legendary and fantastic materials.
The moral and spiritual level is beneath that
of the canonical Scriptures.
Proper dating of the Apocrypha shows its
non-canonical character.
These books were written later than those of
the Old Testament.
Portions of these books even date from the
Christian era.
The Apocrypha was first declared canonical by
the reactionary Roman Catholic Council of
Trent (1546). This conciliar decision was
transparently dogmatic. This action was passed
by a narrow majority.
The Apocrypha is rejected from the canon of
Scripture for numerous reasons.
Besides the fact that Jesus and the apostles
never once quoted from it; and aside from its
obvious lack of inspiration (it "just doesn't sound
like" scripture; "My sheep hear My voice," John
10; etc.) – there are many solid reasons for
rejecting its contents from being included with
the canonical scriptures. [Much of the following
material comes from Paul D. Wegner, The
Journey from Texts to Translations (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 125.]
A. The Apocrypha contains chronological
errors and statements contrary to history.
Baruch 1:2 (comp. Jeremiah 43:6-7)
Bel and the Dragon 22 (Xerxes did it); Bel
and the Dragon 33
Tobit 1:4 (Tobit is said to live in Nineveh in
722 BC, and yet he also saw the division of
the united kingdom in 931 BC. [1 Kings
12:19-20])
Esther 11:2-4 (the dates of Mordecai's
captivity [597 BC] and dream [485/484 BC]
would make him 112 years old)
1 Esdras 5:56 has the second year of Cyrus
rather than the second year of Darius; in
5:73 Cyrus (c. 530 BC) died more than two
years before the reign of Darius (c. 522/521-
486 BC.)
Tobit 1:15 "But when Shalmaneser died,
and his son Sennacherib reigned in his
place," Shalmanezer died before the fall of
Samaria, and Sennacherib was Sargon's son.
Tobit 14:15 " Before he died he heard of the
destruction of Nineveh, and he saw its
prisoners being led into Media, those whom
King Cyaxares of Media had taken captive."
Nineveh's conquerors were Naboplazzar and
Cyaxares (612 B.C.).
Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC)
ruled over Babylon after Nineveh was
destroyed in 612 BC.
Judith 2:1 Nebuchadnezzar was king of the
Babylonians, and Holofernes [v.4] may be
from a much later time.
Judith 4:3-4 and 5:19 Nebuchadnezzar sent
the Jews into exile, and they returned under
Cyrus (538 BC).
Bel and the Dragon 33 Habakkuk wrote
before 612 BC [Hab. 1:6], making unlikely a
visit to Daniel almost 75 years later (539
BC).
B. It contains geographical errors.
Tobit 1:4; 6:1; 9:2 (This was an 11 day
journey from Ecbatana to Rages but made to
seem shorter.) The Tigris River is west of
Nineveh; Persia is east.
Judith 1:6 Hydaspes, a river in India, is
erroneously placed in Mesopotamia.
Judith 2:21 The 300 miles separating
Nineveh and Bectileth makes a 3-day march
impossible.
Judith 2:24 The normal route is south from
Cilicia to Damascus, not following the
Euphrates River.
1 Maccabees 9:2 says "Gilgal" when it
should have said "Galilee" (cf. Josephus,
Ant. 12:11.1, sections 420-421)
C. Mistakes
Baruch 6:1-3 (Epistle of Jeremiah) 70 years
called seven generations
2 Esdras 6:42 says that God in creation
gathered the waters to a seventh part of the
earth, whereas in fact water covers 70% of
the earth's surface.
2 Esdras 3:1 has Ezra in Babylon 30 years
after the fall of Jerusalem, whereas Ezra
lived a century later.
2 Maccabees 1:19 Persia should be Babylon
(2 Kings 24:14)
D. Many false teachings are represented, and
evil practices that the inspired Word of God
condemns are condoned.
Prayers for the dead. 2 Maccabees 12:40-45.
A post-death visit by Jeremiah in 15:14.
Salvation by good works (almsgiving, etc.).
Sirach 3:3, 14-15 (kindness to parents atones
for sin)
Sirach 3:30 (almsgiving atones for sins)
30:11-12 2; Esdras 7:7; 8:33, 36; Tobit 12:9, 8a;
14:11
The use of magic.
In demon exorcism. Tobit 6-8
In healing. Tobit 11
"Good luck" (fortune). Sirach 8:19
The intercession of angels. Tobit 12:15
(Raphael)
Suicide. 2 Maccabees 14:4146
Mourning for the dead. Sirach 38:16-23
(especially verses 20-21)
Sinless lives of Old Testament personalities.
Prayer of Manasseh 8
2 Esdras 6:55 The Bible never says the world
was created for Israel
2 Esdras 8:4-5 possibly suggests the preexistence
of souls
E. Contradictions
1 Maccabees 4:26-35 contradicts 2 Macc.
10:37-11:12, which puts Lysia's defeat after
the death of Timothy.
1 Maccabees 4:30-35 contradicts 2 Macc.
11:6-15, which says it was a negotiated
peace.
1 Maccabees 6:8-9 contradicts 2 Macc. 9:5-
12, which says that the king was struck with
a repulsive physical disease.
2 Maccabees 8:9 contradicts 1 Macc. 3:38-
4:25, which says that Gorgias, not Nicanor,
was leader.
2 Maccabees 8:13 contradicts 1 Macc. 3:56,
which cites other reasons for the troop
reduction.
2 Maccabees 10:3 contradicts 1:19-2:1 on
how altar fire was restarted and contradicts
1:54 and 4:52, which say 3 years instead of
2.
2 Maccabees 10:37 contradicts 12:2, 18-25,
where Timothy reappears (cf. 1 Macc. 5:11-
40).
2 Maccabees 11:13-15 contradicts 1 Macc.
4:35, which says that no peace was made.
2 Maccabees 13:16 contradicts 1 Macc.
6:47, which says the Jews fled.
F. Some of the miracles and events described
are simply fabulous and silly.
Tobit 6:2-7, 16-17, etc. (placing incense smoke
on the organs of a man eating fish to ward off
evil spirits; the demon was in love with the
woman and had killed her last seven husbands
on their wedding night)
G. Only three divisions of the Old Testament
are described in Luke 24:44.
Matthew 23:35
and Luke 11:51 also witness the arrangement
and compass of the Old Testament – not
allowing for any books outside the time from
Genesis to 2 Chronicles. The books of the
Apocrypha form no part of the canon, but rather
serve as witnesses to life and thought in the
intertestamental period.