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

Problems with gauging by historical accuracy

I don't think the equation "not pure history = not inspired" holds up. While I do accept the Bible as being historical to a point, looking for flawless history or flawless science is to look at the Bible with human scrutiny rather than trying to find out what God may be saying through these human authors that were not always schooled individuals. For example Daniel 5:1-5 and 18 states that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was actually the son of Nabonidus. Things like this exist in the Hebrew Bible and so what? It doesn't detract from the divine message, only from what human beings consider perfection.

I had said above, and I'm not sure if my response was even read, but both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches consider the apocrypha inspired; so it isn't just the Catholic church that accepts them. The council of Rabbis that rejected the apocrypha also rejected the New Testament; so I don't think they are competent judges in what is inspired by God. Since they consider the part of the Bible that outlines salvation to be uninspired, I would not hold their judgement to be sound.