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

I've addressed a lot of this already

1, 2, 5, 14, 16, 19 are patently false. No one who has researched church history would believe these to be true. I am left with the impression that either the writer is openly being deceptive or he has absolutely no knowledge of the early church. It has to be one or the other.

3 is irrelevant in as much as many authors in the OT do not openly declare inspiration; such as Song of Songs, Job, etc.

4 is rather ridiculous. I've already said this but there a number of books (such as Song of Songs) that are not cited in the New Testament. This cannot be used as an argument against them. There was no set canon in Jesus day even though there was universal agreement on many books (please see my thread on the canon). It is silly to try and guess all the books Jesus considered inspired even though we can tell some of them by what He actually quoted. Jude considered 1 Enoch inspired. The didache cites Sirach. There are many parallel ideas in the NT with the apocrypha.

6 I've already addressed in my reference to Daniel. Poetic license is poetic license. Protestants should really try to appreciate the Bible as more than mere history. I have a tendency to think that Protestantism has drifted more and more into Pharisaism starting with the Puritans.

Let me address number 7 with 1 Corinthians 15:29:
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
I cite this not because I agree with the doctrine but because I do not sweep unpleasant parts of scripture under the rug just because I am Protestant.

8 is rather puzzling given that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is way more offensive. Not that I agree with any of the sexism that was common in Judaism at the time.

9 see my answer for number 8. I could add more from the Pentateuch and other books if necessary.

10-13 are pretty much irrelevant except that the Qumran community undoubtedly thought Jubilees, Sirach and 1 Enoch to be inspired. Not only because of the number of copies that are found there but because the ideas found in these books are found in many other scrolls in Qumran (and in the New Testament incidentally). I am more than familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Jesus' canon would be very close to the Qumran canon.

15 and 17 is true to a degree but Jerome is not enough of an authority to exclude the apocrypha. It was not ever seriously questioned before him. That is the truth.

18, 20 and 21 I would have to look into further but I question it. As it stands even if it were the case, these are still too few examples of those opposing the apocrypha.

I would really encourage those Protestants who feel passionately about this to go to my thread on the canon because they will see that they are the ones who have departed from the true canon unfortunately. As a Protestant myself, I am unbiased in this discussion. I came to these conclusions after researching the early church writings and the canon. I am put off by how many Protestants will lie in their opposition to the apocrypha. It is unsettling.