March 12, 2025
0

The Apocrypha and the Canon: Separating Fact from Fiction

The formation of the biblical canon, particularly the status of the Apocrypha, is a topic riddled with misconceptions. To navigate these complexities, we must examine historical evidence and understand the distinctions between canonical and non-canonical texts. This exploration will draw from the insights of scholars and historical documents, clarifying the role of councils like Nicaea and Trent, and debunking the myth of Nicaea’s involvement in canonization.

The Myth of Nicaea and the Canon

One of the most pervasive myths surrounding the Bible’s formation is the notion that the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), under Emperor Constantine, established the biblical canon. This idea, popularized by works of fiction and misinformation, has no basis in historical fact.

John D. Meade, in his article “Did Nicaea Really Create the Bible?” on the Text and Canon Institute, dismantles this myth with compelling evidence: “There is no historical basis for the idea that Nicaea established the canon and created the Bible. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity and other early evidence show that Christians disputed the boundaries of the biblical canon before and after Nicaea. For example, even lists from pro-Nicaean fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. AD 350) and Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. AD 367) don’t agree on the inclusion of Revelation. None of the early records from the council, nor eyewitness attendees (Eusebius or Athanasius, for example), mentions any conciliar decision that established the canon.” (Meade: Did Nicaea Really Create the Bible?)

The reality is that the Council of Nicaea primarily addressed the Arian controversy concerning the nature of Christ, not the biblical canon. The process of canon formation was a gradual, organic development within the early church.

Cyril of Jerusalem’s pronouncements, written around 350 AD in his Catechetical Lectures, offer a crucial glimpse into the developing, though not yet fully solidified, New Testament canon of the mid-4th century. He stated “Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say. Thus much of these subjects.” (Gifford, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)

His explicit declaration, “Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous,” establishes a clear boundary against apocryphal gospels like the Manichaean “Gospel according to Thomas,” which he deemed a corrupting influence. He further solidified the core by including “the Acts of the Twelve Apostles,” “the seven Catholic Epistles,” and “the fourteen Epistles of Paul,” effectively outlining the major components of what would become the standard New Testament. (Lane, Bishop Cyril Names the Canon of Scripture in Jerusalem)

However, his caution to “let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank” and to avoid reading any books “not read in Churches” illustrates the ongoing process of discernment. This demonstrates that while a substantial core was widely accepted, the precise limits of the canon were still being debated and defined within local church communities. Cyril’s work, therefore, serves as a significant marker in the history of the New Testament, revealing the foundation upon which later, more formalized canons would be built, and showing the high degree of acceptance that the 27 books of the current New Testament had in 350 AD.

The Gradual Development of the Canon

Michael J. Kruger, in his essay “The Biblical Canon” on The Gospel Coalition, provides a clear picture of the canon’s gradual emergence: “By the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr has an established fourfold Gospel collection that is read in worship alongside OT books (see his 1 Apology, 47.3). And by the time of Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the late second-century, we see a nearly complete NT corpus. His canon consists of about twenty-two out of twenty-seven NT books which he regards as Scripture and cites over one thousand times.” (Kruger, The Biblical Canon)

This evidence demonstrates that the core of the New Testament canon was widely recognized and used by the early church well before the Council of Nicaea. The recognition of canonical books was based on factors such as apostolic authorship, conformity to orthodox doctrine, and widespread acceptance within the Christian community.

The Apocrypha: A Matter of Dispute

The Apocrypha, a collection of Jewish religious texts written primarily during the Second Temple period, exists in a liminal space between the Old and New Testaments. Its inclusion in various Bible versions has sparked centuries of debate.

The Protestant Stance:

Protestants, following the Reformation, generally exclude the Apocrypha from their canonical scriptures. This position is rooted in several key arguments:

  • Lack of Apostolic Authority: As David Briones notes in his article “What is the Apocrypha?” on Desiring God, “Jesus and the New Testament authors never directly quote the Apocrypha. Neither do they introduce it with labels that would suggest inspiration, such as ‘as it is written’ or ‘as the Scripture says.’ Many echoes and allusions have been detected in the New Testament, but no direct quotes or obvious paraphrases appear in the New Testament.” This absence of explicit endorsement by Jesus and the apostles raises questions about the Apocrypha’s divine inspiration. (Briones, What is the Apocrypha?)
  • Historical and Doctrinal Concerns: Protestants also point to historical inaccuracies and doctrinal discrepancies within the Apocrypha, raising concerns that include historical anachronisms contradicting established records, doctrinal inconsistencies such as passages suggesting the efficacy of prayers for the dead or the earning of salvation by works, and geographical or cultural descriptions that do not align with other historical sources. These issues cause concern for Protestants who adhere to Sola Scriptura and the inerrancy of Scripture, leading them to reject the Apocrypha’s canonical status. (Slick, Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible.)
  • Confessional Statements: The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) 1.3 succinctly captures the Protestant perspective: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” This statement underscores the belief that the Apocrypha, while potentially valuable for historical and moral insights, should not be treated as divinely inspired scripture. (Westminster Assembly, Westminster Confession of Faith)

The Catholic Counterpoint: A Shift in Tradition

The Catholic Church’s affirmation of the Apocrypha’s canonicity, formalized at the Council of Trent (1546), represents a significant divergence from the prevailing consensus of early Christian authorities. While the Septuagint’s influence and the nuances of Jerome’s work played a role, the definitive shift at Trent was driven by a confluence of historical and theological factors. Examining the complex interplay of these elements—including the adoption of the Septuagint, the interpretation of Jerome’s writings, and the specific doctrinal challenges of the Reformation era—is crucial to understanding how the Catholic Church arrived at its distinct position on the Apocrypha, a position that ultimately departed from the more nuanced and often hesitant approach of earlier Christian writers and councils.

  • Early Canon’s Fluidity, but Core Stability: While there were variations in early lists of canonical books, the core of the Old Testament (the Hebrew canon) and the emerging New Testament was relatively stable. The variations that existed, were not so much about the core old testament
  • The Septuagint’s Ambiguous Influence: While the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, included the Apocryphal books, this inclusion did not equate to their universal acceptance as canonical Scripture by early Christians. Although some early church fathers, particularly those more familiar with the Septuagint like Augustine, cited these books, this does not indicate that they were considered equal to the protocanonical books.
  • Jerome’s Clear Distinction: Jerome, in his translation of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly recognized the distinction between the Hebrew canon (protocanon) and the Apocrypha (deuterocanon). He affirmed that the Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew Bible, which was considered the authoritative source by most early church fathers. While Jerome included the apocrypha within the vulgate, he did so with clear notes that they were of a secondary nature, and not to be used to establish doctrine.
  • Trent’s Doctrinal Defense: During the Reformation, when Martin Luther and other reformers rejected the Apocrypha’s canonicity, the Catholic Church responded by formally declaring most of these books canonical. The Council of Trent’s decision was significantly influenced by the need to defend certain doctrines, such as prayers for the dead and purgatory, which found support in passages within the Apocrypha. This decision by the council of Trent, was a departure from the historical views of many preceding early church fathers, and formalized the inclusion of books that had previously been considered secondary.

Conclusion: Understanding the Canon’s Significance

The historical evidence and theological considerations presented strongly support the traditional Protestant view: the Apocrypha is not canonical and does not belong within the Bible. The absence of direct quotes or endorsements by Jesus and the New Testament authors, coupled with the historical and doctrinal concerns raised by reformers and confessional statements like the Westminster Confession of Faith, underscores its non-canonical status.

The myth of Nicaea establishing the canon has been thoroughly debunked. The true story of canon formation reveals a gradual process of recognition within the early church, guided by the Holy Spirit and based on criteria like apostolic authorship and conformity to orthodox doctrine.

While the Apocrypha may possess historical and literary value, it lacks the divine authority that characterizes the inspired Scriptures. To include it within the biblical canon would blur the lines between divinely revealed truth and human writings, potentially leading to doctrinal confusion.

Therefore, upholding the established boundaries of the Old and New Testament canons is essential for maintaining the integrity and authority of God’s Word. Christians can appreciate the Apocrypha for its historical context and insights, but should always distinguish it from the inspired and infallible Scriptures that form the foundation of our faith.

References:

Posted inBlog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *