The word "Apocrypha" means "hidden" or "unknown." The Apocrypha is a group of books (usually 14-15) that were written during the "four hundred years of silence" between the last book of the Old Testament (Malachi) and the birth of Christ, though some were written by 100 AD. Though these books provide valuable insight into the history of the time, particularly with the Maccabees Revolt (as well as other things found in the Apocrypha), and though there are groups of well-meaning Christians that include these books as Scripture, there are several reasons why this group of books is typically excluded as Scripture. In this entry, we will examine the books of the Apocrypha, as well as other alleged "lost Gospels," and determine whether or not they belong in the Bible. "(Photo credit: SeekingChrist; Berend de Boer)"Roman Catholic Bibles tend to include the Apocrypha, and along with the books written between the Old and New Testament, additions to the book of "Esther" and "Daniel" are also included. The Apocrypha was accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546, essentially in response to the Protestant Reformation. This collection of writings is not considered inspired by many because of the various theological issues and historical problems. No prophets, like with the Old Testament, wrote the Apocrypha. In fact, in one of the books, "1st Maccabees 9:27", we read, "It was a time of great affliction for Israel, worse than any since the day when prophets ceased to appear among them" (see also "1st Maccabees 4:46"). To note, these works were never considered part of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jews ruled them out, and indeed looked forward to the day that "a true prophet should appear" ("1st Maccabees 14:41"). Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, also did not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired, nor did Jesus and His apostles. Josephus, for example, was familiar with the Septuagint, as was Jesus and His disciples - they quoted extensively from the Greek Septuagint, but never quoted from the Apocrypha. The writers of the New Testament rarely quoted from other works, though Paul quoted from Greek poets in "Acts 17", with Jude quoting from the "Book of Enoch". To be clear, Enoch is technically not considered part of the Apocrypha. It falls into a different category than apocryphal or pseudipigraphal works. None of the official books of the Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament, and though "Enoch" is quoted, it is not considered part of official Apocrypha.Though "Jude 14-15" quotes from "Enoch 1:9" saying, "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in an ungodly way, and all of the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." However, simply because this book is quoted does not make it inspired nor does it qualify it to be a part of canon. The inclusion of this particular prophecy about Christ demonstrates that this prophecy was inspired, but not the entirety of the book of "Enoch". Perhaps it would be best to note the books generally included in the Apocrypha: "1st Esdras"; "2nd Esdras"; "Tobit"; "Judith"; additions to "Esther"; "Wisdom of Solomon"; "Ecclesiasticus" (also called the "Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach" or simply, "Sirach"); "Baruch"; "A Letter of Jeremiah"; "The Song of the Three"; "Daniel and Susanna"; "Daniel, Bel and the Snake"; "The Prayer of Manasseh"; "1st Maccabees" and "2nd Maccabees"."There are variations of official Apocrypha, typically because of different denominational beliefs. Such examples include (but are not limited to): Psalm 151", "Odes", "3rd" and "4th Maccabees", "Jubilees", "3rd" and "4th Esdras", as well as others. When the Apocrypha is claimed to not have been quoted by New Testament writers, skeptics have pointed out that the Old Testament books such as Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon) as well as Esther are not quoted from or alluded to - however, this is different than the Apocrypha in that the Old Testament is quoted extensively by New Testament writers, it does not matter that "Esther "and "Song of Songs "are not quoted - Jesus and others considered "The Law and the Prophets" as inspired Scripture. As for the New Testament, the writers believed that their writings were inspired - indeed, even Peter equated Paul's letters to "the other Scriptures," referring to the Old Testament ("2nd Peter 3:16").The Apocryphal works are valuable as insight into the times, but not as Scripture. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD threatened Judaism as a whole, its survival and its very identity. However, Christianity was also growing significantly. This led to the "closing" of the canon of Scripture, explored more in depth in the article "Is The Bible Reliable? Has It Been Altered?" (which examines the Bible and how it became what we have today). Concerning the "closing," the Old Testament was accepted, but the Apocryphal books were rejected because they failed in many aspects - such as having historical inconsistencies. The works found in the Apocrypha were well known to the early Christian church, since they utilized the Septuagint Bible (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures ca.250 BC, also known as the LXX), which also contained the Apocrypha - yet they did not regard the Apocrypha as canon. In the 5th century, Jerome was given the task of making a definitive Latin translation of God's Word.Though Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin translation (known as the Vulgate), he made it clear that they were not Scripture, but as with many other works of antiquity of that time, Jerome felt it should be translated into Latin. Church fathers such as Melito, Origin, Athanasius, Cyril, and others rejected the Apocrypha, and though the Apocrypha was included in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus (the presence of which does not indicate these were regarded as Scripture), the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha and regards it as Scripture despite its internal, historical, and theological inconsistencies. By 405 AD, Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha as canon, and it gained gradual acceptance in the Catholic church in the following centuries. However, many Catholics regard the Apocrypha as un-inspired, and do not consider it part of the Bible. Martin Luther (1483-1546) included the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible, and placed them in a separate section after the Old Testament. In response to this reduction of the Apocrypha's position in canon, the Catholic Church declared it canon at the Council of Trent in 1546. This is when the works were given the name of "Deuterocanonicals," the Greek" deuteros" meaning "second," thus the reason it has been called "second canon": according to the Catholic church, these books belong to a second layer of canon, but it does not imply that they are of less worth than the Old Testament. The issue is that the books of the Apocrypha contain many concepts not found in Scripture as well as historical inaccuracies, yet support created Catholic doctrine, hence the reason for their inclusion.Most Protestants exclude the Apocrypha from Biblical canon. It would be appropriate and proper to take the books as insights into the time between the Old and New Testament, but should not be taken as the Word of God - as noted, the Apocrypha does not claim inspiration but rather essentially states the opposite. What of the canon of the Bible? "Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God's messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.""For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235)."There were only ever four gospels used by church for the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus - "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John". Pseduo-gospels, Gnostic gospels and others were rejected by the early church. The early church - who lived during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events of the life of Jesus, easily verified the facts of His birth, life, death and resurrection, and knowing these facts, rejected the false ideas advocated and promoted in these pseudepigraphal works. When Gnostics began to write their own works, the early church was alerted to the fact that the official canon needed to be recognized, hence the reason for the compiling of the official New Testament canon. Polycarp (martyred in 155 AD) considered the New Testament as "Sacred Scriptures," with Clement of Rome (before the end of the 1st century) claiming that Paul wrote "in the Spirit," and considered his letters to be "Scriptures." Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and other early Christian writers considered the New Testament as "Scripture" alongside the Old Testament - none of which included the Apocrypha or Gnostic Gospels.Names such as Toby (coming from "Tobit") and Judith illustrates the fact that the Apocrypha has had some influence on English society. The Apocrypha was not originally part of Old Testament canon and was not accepted by denominations such as Catholicism until later. Though New Testament writers quote from extrabiblical books, they do not quote from the Apocrypha (as aforementioned, Enoch is not considered part of the Apocrypha). Let us examine a few examples of the inconsistencies among the Apocrypha and the "Lost" Gospels. First off, understand that the term applied to the Gnostic Gospels and other works were never really "lost." The church was fully aware of these works, and outright rejected the works as uninspired and un-Scriptural. The "Gospel of Thomas", for example, is not a life story but a collection of 114 supposed sayings of Jesus.The issue arises with "Thomas" - much of these sayings are contrary to the rest of Scripture and fail many tests of true Scripture, and no serious scholar accepts this work as authored by Thomas. The "Gospel of Mary", alleged written by Mary Magdalene, is purported by the likes of Dan Brown and Baigent to further their philosophical assumptions, unfounded with no archaeological or historical support for the concocted legends. The "Gospel of Barnabas" claims that "Judas took on the appearance of Jesus and was mistakenly crucified in Jesus' place. The gospel also claims that Jesus told His mother and disciples that He had not been crucified. It is noteworthy that the Gospel of Barnabas claims that the Messiah was to be descended, not from Isaac, but from Ishmael. The document is therefore much quoted by Muslims wanting to prove Islam to be the true faith. It has since been found that it was written in medieval times long after Christ." The Gnostic gospels were not written by the authors assigned to them - most of which were not written until centuries after Christ. Another example of a historical inaccuracy is found in the Apocrypha - "2nd Esdras 3:1" records a chronological error concerning the life of Ezra, with another inaccuracy concerning Tobit, who claims to have lived when Jeroboam revolted (931 BC) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 BC). "Tobit 1:15" also records, incorrectly, that Sennacherib was Shalmanesar's son, however, his son was Sargon II, not Sennacherib. "Tobit 12:9" demonstrates a theological inaccuracy: it states that "Almsgiving preserves a man from death and wipes out all sin," but this is contrary to "Ephesians 2:8-9" which states that faith in Jesus, not good works, wipes out sin. "2nd Esdras 1:11" also makes a geographical error concerning the location of Tyre and Sidon."Consider also Judith 1:1" which says, "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians from his capital, Nineveh, Arphaxad was ruling the Medes from Ecbatana." The issue is this: Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon, reigning from his capital at Babylon. His father, Nabopolassar, destroyed Nineveh years prior. "Tobit...contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares....Judith cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains...[In 2 Maccabees] there are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion..." The Apocrypha contains statements that do not only contradict the canonical scriptures but themselves. For example, in the "2nd Maccabees", Antiochus Epiphanes is said to die three different deaths in three different places. Now, it is worth noting that the Catholic church recognizes the errors and the Apocrypha's indifference of certain historical, theological, and geographical issues. The Apocrypha is an interesting collection of works of antiquity, but should not be regarded as Scripture. Both the Apocrypha and the "Lost" Gospels demonstrate that they were not inspired, and indeed passages such as "2nd Maccabees 15:37-38" disclaim divine inspiration. The Apocrypha is an intriguing work and can be used for research purposes, but not regarded as the Word of God. It was not regarded as Scripture for the first four centuries of Christianity until Catholicism, finding that the Apocrypha supported Catholic doctrines, accepted it.The Apocrypha also teaches certain practices considered immoral, such as lying, suicide, assassination as well as magical incantation. Martin Luther had prefaced the Apocrypha with, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." Twelve years before the King James Version was published (1599), King James is recorded as having said, "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before)..." There are other Catholics who held to the view that the Apocrypha is not Scripture aside from Jerome, including Augustine (354-430 AD who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), Cardinal Ximenes, as well as Cardinal Cajetan. Finally, the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571) stated, "In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche... And the other bookes, (as Hierome [Jerome] sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene." Thank you for taking the time to read this entry of "The Truth." Feel free to email vexx801@yahoo.com or thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit our facebook page, or visit our ministry website. The Truth Ministries stands upon the Bible as the accurate, preserved, reliable, inspired Word of God, and as such our Christian worldview is based upon this thinking. It is the mission of this ministry to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" ("2nd Corinthians 10:5"). Take care, and God bless you reader. "Troy Hillman"SOURCES: Hodge, Bodie. "A Look at the Canon. Answers In Genesis". Answers In Genesis, 23 January 2008. Web. 5 Aug 2011. < http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon >. David and Pat Alexander, et al., First. "Zondervan Handbook to the Bible". 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999. 515-516. Print. Taylor, Paul, and Ken Ham. "The New Answers Book 2". 5th ed. 2. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2009. 224-225. Print. "Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible", Vol. 1, 207-210; cf., the discussion in Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 167-177 and "Encyclopedia Britannica", Macropaedia, Vol. 2, 932ff. "King James Version Defended". pp 98. King James Charles Stewart. Basilicon Doron, page 13. Philip Schaff." Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491."
