We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Is the Apocrypha inspired revelation?

tomgroeneman's picture

According to the first completed Canon of Scripture at the Council of Carthage in AD 419, the apocryphal books were adopted as biblical. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html Why do not the protestant Churches consider them scriptural? Most contemporary Bibles exclude the apocryphal books but even the original King James Version included them. Are they any less inspired than the other books of the Bible?

Panoramicromantic's picture

Not impressed with McMahon

There are several problems I have with the document just from a perusal:

1) It is virulently polemical. Not the kind of meekness and humility that I look for and would be convinced by. I'm not Catholic but I believe as a Christian I should treat fellow Christians with dignity and respect.

2) Fallacious in that it leads you to believe that Roman Catholics are the only ones that accept the aprocrypha when both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches do as well. Protestants, particularly the Puritans and it's offshoots, seem to like to ignore the Orthodox churches in their need to combat the RCC.

3) It quotes Augustine as rejecting the apocrypha which is quite easily disproved by just a search through his writings on here. He regularly quotes from it. You don't quote something as scripture unless you consider it inspired.

4) If Christians are to reject the first 1500 years of using a particular canon -that is the Bible containing the Septuagint and the apocrypha, one would have to indicate why those who want to change the canon are of greater authority than the church fathers who gave this canon their stamp of approval for 1500 years. I should also add that the proto-protestants John Wyclif and John Huss both quoted from the apocrypha as well as the Anabaptists which I already mentioned. The Puritans certainly don't qualify as the ultimate authority in this matter; neither does Luther or Calvin.

5) There was only one reason Protestants had for rejecting it. It was rejected by the Rabbis at the supposed council of Jamnia. Christians are Christians and Jews are Jews. I can't be convinced one way or another by what the Rabbis endorsed or did not endorse.

6) Something that fundamentalist Protestants cannot seem to comprehend is that the Bible is not a work of science and philosophy it is a work of Spirit that transcends our notions of consistency. Antinomies/paradoxes are found throughout the Bible, not just in the apocrypha. Theologians grappled with this way before Protestants came along. The Anabaptist Hans Denck, following Erasmus and others, compiled a list. It can be found here:


I know many fundamentalist protestants will want to argue about this but the only way I will debate it is if they can provide a reconciliation for all the verses that Hans Denck lists as antinomies. I could certainly add a lot more to that list. Some are easy to reconcile some are incredibly difficult.