Readers of the Bible are increasingly coming into contact with the apocryphal books. For example, with the printing of some Bible translations, a deliberate choice is made to offer a handy edition in which these books are placed between the Old and New Testament. Because of the recent interest in the apocryphal books, the question arises about its exact content, and the valuation we are to give its contents.

Canonical Beside Apocryphal⤒🔗

The word “apocryphal” means “hidden.” It was used in the ancient church for all kinds of writings of unknown origin, writings which, for that reason, should not be given all that much attention. Later the term “apocryphal” received a special meaning, as an indicator of books which did offer themselves with a certain amount of authority, but did not belong to the Canon of the Old and New Testament. We know the term in this way from the Belgic Confession which says of the sixty-six books of the Bible that they are “holy and canonical, for the regulation, founding, and establishing of our faith” (Belgic Confession Article 5). This is not valid for the apocryphal books. “The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion” (Belgic Confession Article 6).

The church has received the books of the Bible and has accepted them as holy and canonical (Belgic Confession Article 5). That brief sentence relates in simple words what happened in an age-long process. It has been suggested that a decision was made for that acceptance in the first century, whereby the church would have made the Bible. That is, however, not the case. Already before the time of the New Testament, the Old Testament as we know it was generally accepted as the authoritative Word of God. A few of the discussions from the beginning of the years AD are known; they are about single books and reveal that people had questions about the authority of that particular book. Known to us is a Rabbinical discussion about Lamentations and Proverbs with the question whether they “soil the hands.” When a scroll, which was intended for reading in the synagogue, soiled the hands, that meant that men were not allowed to touch it because it was the Holy Word of God. The outcome is clear: that is also valid for these books. More important for us is to see what was behind the discussion. Clearly the same sort of question was not asked about the other books.

Also in the first centuries of the church, there is no great debate about which books were to be accepted or rejected. The books of the Bible showed themselves to be authoritative because the Lord himself spoke in them. The Bible formed the church, not the other way around.

Differences in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Translation←⤒🔗

Still, a difference did develop between the two Bibles in the early church. In the New Testament, the Old Testament is accepted as the book in which God speaks. The authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God is apparent from the manner in which citations from the Old Testament are used. Jesus says to the teachers of the law, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39). Jesus shows from the Scriptures what is written about him “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). With these words, the books of the Old Testament as we know them are consistently meant. That was the Bible that was generally accepted in the land of the Jews. From the apocryphal book Jesus Sirach, it appears that, for the most part, this was already the case in the first-half of the second century before Christ.

Alongside it, another Bible appeared. That was because, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, more books were included and because the early church read the Bible in the language the people knew, Greek. Thus, through this translation, a number of books came into use as Bible books which, initially, did not have the same authority in the land of the Jews and in the New Testament. In the beginning, this did not cause problems. It was not until the fourth century that the question arose whether these books were allowed to be read in the official liturgy. Through the general use of the Greek Bible and because the Latin translation also included the apocryphal books, it became common usage to allow the reading of all the books in the translations in the liturgy. However, at the end of the fourth century the church father Athanasius argued for a limited list of the thirty-nine books in the Hebrew Bible, plus naturally, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

It is easy to understand that, in the time of the Reformation, people turned back to the original compilation of the Bible, even as it was also accepted as the authoritative Word of God by Jesus and the Apostles. Since that time, the extra books out of the Greek translation are called “deutero-canonical” by the Roman Catholic Church and “apocryphal” in the Protestant churches.

Because of the strong emphasis on the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, the lesser authority of the apocryphal books is clearly expressed in the Belgic Confession Article 6 in the Protestant Churches.

Usefulness←⤒🔗

The abovementioned facts do not take anything away from the usefulness of the apocryphal books. They are very useful when we think about the way that these books can inform us about the period of time between the Old and New Testaments. The apocryphal books give insight into the variegation of the Jewish nation at that time, the expectations and struggles of their faith, the history of the time from the rebuilding of the temple up to the Roman times, and insight into the manner in which the people sought to live with the law of God. It is, in many aspects, a spiritual climate during which Jesus and his disciples spoke and lived their faith. For those reasons alone, these books offer much that is good, things we can also use as resources for the experiencing of our faith today. That time in history can be compared to our time in many ways. God’s people, as a minority, had to remain steadfast in a Hellenistic society. In the prayers, in the hope, in living out of Scripture, and in wisdom of life experience, we can encounter an experience of faith which has much to say to us today.

Broadly←⤒🔗

Finally, it is good to give a short summary of each book. Very broadly: in many handbooks and essays about the Bible, much more information can be found.

The book Judith describes how a graceful and charming woman entices and kills a general, whereby she is an instrument in God’s intervention for his people. The historical details are not accurate. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as the king of Assyria whereas he was a Babylonian and the general named with him belonged to the Persian kingdom. This book was probably written in the second century before Christ.

The book Tobit (from the same time) talks about how a pious Jew becomes poor and blind. His son Tobias receives the mandate to seek for a lost sum of money. On his journey he is accompanied by someone who later is revealed as an angel. On the way, he catches a fish, the liver and heart of which stand him in good stead when he marries a woman whose first five lovers were killed by a demon on the first wedding night. The liver and the heart serve to chase away the demon. Once he has come home with his bride, the bile of the fish heals the blindness of his father, Tobit. This story is an encouragement to remain steadfast in trials. The scope of the story is very fanciful.

The Wisdom of Solomon (beginning of the first century before Christ), The Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach (about 180 BC), and the book Baruch (written during a longer period up to the first half of 1 AD) are books of wisdom which show a relationship to the book of Proverbs. Something is revealed of the way people wanted to live out of the law of God, but there are also very superficial and overly optimistic proverbs included which have a very strained relationship with the whole of God’s revelation.

1 Maccabees (about 100 BC) is a continuation of the description of history from the time of the captivity. Especially the opposition against the wicked ruler Antiochus IV who desecrated the temple takes a central place. The feast of Hanukkah was instituted at the recapture of the temple. This is described in more detail in 2 Maccabees (written a little later than 1 Maccabees) with an appeal to Jews outside of Israel to celebrate this feast. It is noteworthy that these books, which describe the origin of an important feast for the Jews, have not been taken up into the Jewish canon. They have clearly not been accepted as the Word of God.

The additions to Esther, Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh are from different dates and add their own accents to the Bible text. Wonders are magnified, prayers are answered, intended to strengthen faith in a time during which people were recognized something of the time of Esther, Daniel, or Manasseh. It reveals to us how people sought to live according to the Word of God in times of trial.