The short answer is no: the Apocrypha should not be received as inspired Scripture. However, this conclusion does not require dismissing the books as worthless or pretending they have no historical significance. Many apocryphal books are useful for studying the period between the Old and New Testaments. But usefulness is not the same as canonicity. Scripture is not determined by curiosity, antiquity, literary beauty, or popularity in some communities. Scripture is recognized by divine authority, theological truth, covenantal reception, and enduring recognition among the people of God.1
The first major issue is Jewish reception. The Old Testament was entrusted to Israel, and the New Testament writers repeatedly appeal to the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings as the sacred Scriptures. The Apocrypha was not received into the Hebrew Bible that became normative in Judaism. Josephus describes a closed and limited body of sacred books and explicitly distinguishes later writings from those possessing the same authority.2 This evidence does not prove that no Jew ever valued the Apocrypha, but it strongly indicates that these books did not possess the same recognized authority as the Hebrew Scriptures.
A second issue is prophetic authority. The Old Testament canon is tied to the ministry of recognized prophets and the covenantal history of Israel. Several apocryphal books arise in a period when many Jews believed the prophetic voice had ceased or become rare. 1 Maccabees itself appears to acknowledge this reality when it refers to uncertainty that would remain “until a prophet should arise.”3 A book can be historically valuable while still lacking the prophetic authority that belongs to Scripture.
A third issue is the testimony of Christ and the apostles. The New Testament contains many quotations from the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, and it treats those writings as the word of God. While there may be verbal parallels or thematic similarities between the New Testament and some apocryphal literature, there is no clear instance where Jesus or an apostle quotes an apocryphal book with a formula such as “it is written” in order to establish doctrine as Scripture.4 Allusion is not canonization.
A fourth issue is doctrinal and theological consistency. Scripture does not contradict itself in its teaching. Some apocryphal passages raise serious theological concerns when measured against the canonical books. The most famous example is prayer and offering for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12, a passage later used in discussions of purgatory. Protestants have historically argued that such teaching lacks support from the canonical Scriptures and therefore cannot be used to establish doctrine.5
A fifth issue is the diversity and size of ancient noncanonical literature. There are not merely a few disputed books waiting to be added to the Bible. There are many apocryphal, pseudepigraphal, and later legendary writings attributed to biblical figures. Some claim to preserve revelations from Enoch, Ezra, Baruch, Moses, Adam, Abraham, Thomas, Peter, or Mary. It would be utterly foolish and undiscerning to assume that every ancient religious book should belong in the canon simply because it is old, interesting, or associated with a biblical name.
This is where the category of pseudepigrapha is especially important. Many ancient writings were falsely attributed to authoritative figures in order to gain credibility. Pseudonymous attribution was common in some ancient literary contexts, but the Church cannot treat false attribution as a mark of divine authority. A book claiming to be written by a prophet or apostle must be tested, not automatically accepted.6
The early Church’s use of the Apocrypha was mixed. Some fathers cited apocryphal books positively. Others drew a line between canonical books and ecclesiastical books that might be read for edification. Jerome’s position is especially significant: he defended the Hebrew canon and denied that the Apocrypha should be used to confirm doctrine.7 The fact that early Christians read a book does not prove that they regarded it as Scripture in the full canonical sense.
The Roman Catholic position was formally defined at the Council of Trent in 1546, when many apocryphal books were received as canonical in response to the disputes of the Reformation.8 Protestants, however, argued that Trent elevated books that had lacked universal recognition in Judaism and had long been disputed in Christianity. The Protestant position therefore rests not on novelty but on an older distinction between canonical Scripture and valuable but noncanonical ecclesiastical literature.
Another modern misconception must be rejected: the belief that the Church tried to hide books that should have been in the Bible. The historical record points in the opposite direction. These writings were copied, translated, preserved, cited, debated, and printed. Even Protestant Bibles often included the Apocrypha in a separate section. The issue was not whether people were allowed to read the books. The issue was whether the books possessed the authority of inspired Scripture.
The proper conclusion is that the Apocrypha is religiously and historically useful but not canonical. Christians may study these writings to understand the world of Second Temple Judaism, the background of the New Testament, and the history of later theological debates. But doctrine must be established from the inspired and inerrant books of the Old and New Testaments, not from writings that lack universal covenantal recognition, prophetic authority, and apostolic confirmation.
Therefore, the Apocrypha should be read with respect but not submission. It belongs in the library of important ancient Judeo-Christian literature, not in the canon of Scripture. The sixty-six books of the Holy Bible remain the uniquely inspired, authoritative, and sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Canonical recognition is not the same thing as a later church vote. Councils and confessions can identify, defend, or clarify the canon, but they do not make uninspired books inspired. The authority of Scripture comes from God. The task of God’s people is to recognize that authority faithfully. This is why the marks of canonicity matter more than mere institutional assertion.
The Apocrypha also lacks the internal covenantal role that characterizes the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament gives the covenant history of Israel through the Law, Prophets, and Writings. The New Testament gives the apostolic witness to Christ and the New Covenant. The Apocrypha may fill in historical gaps, but it does not function as the foundational covenant document of either testament.
Related Reading
- What Is the Apocrypha?
- What Is the Deuterocanon?
- How Many Books Are Really in the Bible?
- How Many Apocryphal Books Are There?
- About Apocrypha.com
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
No. It is historically valuable, but it lacks the marks of canonical Scripture.
Why is the Apocrypha not Scripture?
It lacks universal Jewish reception, prophetic authority, apostolic confirmation, and doctrinal and theological consistency.
Did Jesus treat the Apocrypha as Scripture?
There is no clear example of Jesus quoting the Apocrypha as Scripture. Moreover, Jesus excludes the time period in which the apocryphal books were written in Luke 11:50–51.
Did the church hide the Apocrypha?
No. These books were known, copied, debated, and often printed separately.
Can the Apocrypha be useful?
Yes. It is useful for history, background, and understanding Second Temple Judaism and the era of the early Church.
Are all old religious books biblical?
No. Age alone does not make a writing inspired Scripture. Discernment has always been necessary for the people of God to identify which books belong to the inerrant, inspired word of God. The Church does not decide the canon; it has no ability to “canonize”; rather, the Church recognizes which books are already canonical.
What is the danger of accepting all apocryphal books?
It would erase the distinction between inspired Scripture and a vast body of disputed, legendary, or falsely attributed writings.
What should determine the canon?
The canon is recognized by divine authority, prophetic or apostolic origin, theological truth, and covenantal reception.
Footnotes
1. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 91–120.
2. Josephus, Against Apion 1.37–43; Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 29–34.
3. 1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41.
4. Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 384–89.
5. 2 Maccabees 12:38–45; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 601–2.
6. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85), xxiii–xxxiv.
7. Jerome, “Prologue to the Books of Solomon,” 492–93.
8. Council of Trent, Session 4, “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” April 8, 1546, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:81–83.
