I. What is being confessed in this article?

1. A series of thirteen writingsThis number 13 combines 3-4 Esdras as well as 1-2 Maccabees. is listed, which are referred to as the Apocrypha. These are to be distinguished from the books of the Bible. What does that mean?
2. On the one hand the church is allowed to read and benefit from these apocryphal books, at least as far as they agree with the canonical books.
   On the other hand, however, we cannot base any part of our faith on it. They do not have such authority; let alone that the authority of the canonical books of the Bible should give way to these.

II. What are apocryphal books?

1. What is the matter with these books? They are no longer found in our Bible. But they used to be, because we still find them especially in older versions, even if it is at the back. And the Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans still have and use them. Besides, the church is allowed to read them. Especially important is the question: who actually decides whether they belong in the Bible or not?
2. The word "apocryphal" means "hidden." But that does not make things much clearer, because why did they speak of "hidden" books? This word was used in two ways. One meant that these books had to remain "hidden" during church services. It was therefore not allowed to be read from the pulpit, because the content was below standard. Another meant that it was an obscure (or "hidden") matter who authored such a book, even if it was sometimes written in the name of a prophet. We do well to combine these two meanings. Then the word "apocryphal" characterizes these books as being too dubious in content and origin to be God’s word.
   In this article, 13 books are indicated by name that were wrongly included in the canon and therefore do not belong there.

III. How did the apocryphal books end up in the Bible?

1. Above all, we should not think that the apocryphal books entered the Bible in the same way as the canonical books and that they were only deleted later – and then on the authority of the church. If that were true, the church itself would have decided as a judge on the composition and content of the Bible. Then the church of today might ask whether these books were correctly removed from the Bible. But things went very differently...
2. In about 200 BC, Jewish scholars translated the OT from Hebrew into Greek, the world language of the time. They did this for the sake of those Jews who no longer knew Hebrew, and at the same time to reach non-Jews. At that time (we still do not know the reason) it also included the apocryphal books in this new Greek Bible, which is called the Septuagint.
   They did not even have to translate these books, because they were already written in Greek. The people who got their hands on this Greek Bible or Septuagint could not have known better whether this was the reliable word of God.

IV. Why the apocryphal books do not belong in the Bible

1. The fact that these books are not written in the Hebrew language already raises suspicion and it serves as a warning. Why? Because it was still the time when God made himself known to his Hebrew-speaking people Israel.
2. More weight is carried in the fact that the Jewish community did not include these books in the canon. Accordingly, Jesus and the apostles never referred to them. The apocryphal books are ignored in the NT.
3. Still more significantly, the content of these books is open to question on more than one point. The book of Judith makes the historical blunder that Nebuchadnezzar did not fight against Israel until after the exile, while he would be king of the Assyrians and live in Nineveh. In Jesus Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus) we find proverbs that are clearly far below the standard of the Bible, such as “Eat what is offered you like a well brought-up person; do not wolf your food or you will earn dislike” (31:16-17, Jerusalem Bible, 1968). In the case of a death, we are told to mourn for one day, or two; otherwise the outside world would say something about it (38:18). Even more questionable is the way in which pious men (especially Daniel) are honoured for their good works. Incidentally, this does not deny the fact that these books contain a lot of good in the form of wise proverbs and historically reliable accounts (for example, 1 Maccabees). But they clearly do not belong in the Bible.

V. The apocryphal books have never been widely accepted

1. We may still be left with the question as to why these books have apparently been accepted as the Word of God for many centuries. Was it then only in the 16^th century that it was discovered that these books were not right?
2. In light of these kinds of questions, it is important to know that from the early times (the second century) there were Church Fathers who did not include the Apocrypha in their Bible. The well-known Hieronymus (who lived around 400 AD) translated the Bible into Latin and he translated the apocryphal books as well. Yet he did this reluctantly, for he strongly criticized these books.
   So there have always been two schools of thought in the church. Some accepted the Septuagint (including these books), but others, along with Hieronymus, adhered to the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament.

VI. The verdict of this article on the Apocrypha

1. The judgment given here about these books is rather mild. There is not much of a warning against them, only the instruction that “[t]he church may read and take instruction from these so far as they agree with the canonical books.” You could understand this as saying that "the church" is therefore also allowed to read from these books during the worship services. And considering certain statements by the author of this Article 6, he may well indeed have intended this as a possibility. But does this imply that it is permitted?
2. Since 1561, an important decision has been made regarding these books. The Synod of Dort 1618-1619 decided to also translate these books into Dutch. It did so to accommodate the foreign churches. But these books were given a special place: at the end. They were printed in small print and also not annotated. Moreover, it was preceded by a warning and that is what we are concerned with here. It states that these books “should not be read openly in the congregation," but it may be useful that “they are sometimes read in person as well." When Article 6 says that "the church" may read them, it means that church members can read these books for themselves.
3. Our conclusion is that the church of the Reformation was lenient in its overall ruling on these books, but that on the other hand it certainly did not want them included in the canon.

Points to discuss

1. The Roman Catholics do have these books in their canon, but consider them to be canonical of the second rank (they have more significance for matters of morality than for doctrine). What do you think of this? Does this not sound a lot like our position that the church should be allowed to read these books?
2. The Dutch Bible Society, together with the Catholic Bible Foundation, published a Bible that also includes the apocryphal books – obviously without the warning from Dort.
3. What is your take on a review that spoke of “fluidity” between these books and the canon? Take into consideration as well that — according to modern views — the Bible reflects the subjective judgment of the authors of the books of the Bible. And is that not what the apocryphal books do as well? Hence the easy flow of attitudes and ideas.