Contents

Biblical ApocryphaEdit

Biblical Apocrypha refers to a set of ancient writings that circulated in Jewish and early Christian circles but were not included in the canonical Hebrew Bible. The term has been used in different ways through history. In many Western churches, what is called the apocrypha in common speech is better described as the deuterocanonical books: works regarded as scripture by Catholic and many Orthodox Christians but not recognized as canonical by most Protestant communities. The distinction arises from questions about authority, apostolic succession, and the historical process by which the biblical canon was formed. For readers coming from traditional Christian frameworks, these writings are often treated as valuable for teaching, moral instruction, and insight into the religious life of the ancient world, even if they are not considered on the same footing as the core Hebrew scriptures.

Across Christian history, the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books illuminate how communities understood revelation, law, wisdom, and piety. The discussion of these texts is tied closely to questions about how the Bible came to be, how old the manuscripts are, and how church leaders judged which writings carried binding authority. In the wake of the Reformation, questions about canonicity sharpened into a formal split: Protestants typically rejected the deuterocanon as scripture, while Catholics and many in the Orthodox world retained it. The Ethiopian tradition, meanwhile, preserves additional books outside the mainstream Catholic and Orthodox canons, underscoring the diversity of biblical books across traditions. Septuagint influence, Hebrew Bible development, and the decisions of early church authorities all shape these differences.

Canonical tradition and terminology

  • What is the apocrypha? In common usage, apocrypha refers to Christian writings not universally accepted as scripture. In Catholic and Orthodox usage, many of these books are labeled deuterocanonical, meaning “second canon” and holding canonical status. The distinction between canonical and non-canonical texts has real implications for liturgy, doctrine, and moral instruction. See the broader idea of the Biblical canon and how different traditions construct their own lists of authoritative books.
  • Terminology and scope: The same body of writings has been described in varying terms. Some traditions speak of the deuterocanonical books, others speak of apocryphal works, and still others use categories such as pseudepigrapha to denote works outside the canonical lists. See Deuterocanonical and Pseudepigrapha for related discussions.

Historical development and canons

  • Early usage and the Greek tradition: In the early centuries of the church, communities used a mixture of Hebrew scriptures and Greek translations that sometimes contained additional material. The Septuagint—the Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures—became the basis for many Christian readings of scripture in the eastern Mediterranean, and it included books not universally recognized in the later Hebrew canon.
  • Latinate formation and western canon: As the Catholic Church and Roman clergy organized doctrine and liturgy, certain books were given canonical authority within the Latin church. The role of influential regional councils and bishops helped shape a list that included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1–2 Maccabees, along with expansions to Esther and Daniel. The Council of Trent (mid-16th century) affirmed the Catholic list as authoritative in opposition to foundational Protestant revisions.
  • Eastern and Orthodox variations: The Eastern Orthodoxy tradition preserved a broader collection, with differences among national churches in the status of certain texts such as 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and additional psalms or Esdras texts. The Orthodox world often reflects a continuity with ancient liturgical and patristic usage, even as local communities sometimes diverge on the precise catalogue.
  • Reformation and Protestant reception: The Protestant Reformation era brought a principled decision to align more closely with the Hebrew Bible’s ordering and content. Figures such as Martin Luther argued for a narrower canon, removing the deuterocanonical books from the authoritative list of scripture. This shift reshaped the modern Protestant Old Testament and influenced translations for centuries.
  • Non-canonical traditions: The Ethiopian Church preserves several texts outside the canons recognized in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant circles, including works such as Book of Enoch and Jubilees. This demonstrates the diversity of biblical authority in different Christian communities.

The books and their traditional roles

  • Catholic and Orthodox lists (deuterocanonical): Books commonly included in Catholic and many Orthodox Bibles include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, plus additions to Esther and to Daniel (such as the Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Fiery Furnace, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon). In addition, 1 and 2 Maccabees are usually considered canonical in these traditions for matters of history and faith under persecution. See Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel, and 1 Maccabees / 2 Maccabees.
  • Orthodox variations: The Orthodox canons often include 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees, and they variously include or exclude other texts such as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras depending on national church practice. See 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees for related discussions, and 1 Esdras / 2 Esdras for Esdras texts.
  • Texts outside the mainstream canons: The Ethiopian tradition features additional works, most notably Book of Enoch and Jubilees, along with other unique writings such as some forms of Meqabyan. These illustrate a broader sense of scriptural authority in different Christian communities. See Meqabyan for the Ethiopian sequence.

Controversies and debates

  • Canonic authority and historical process: A central debate concerns how early communities decided which writings carried binding authority. Proponents of the traditional canon emphasize apostolic witness, continuity with Tradition and the sense of divine inspiration experienced in worship and teaching. Critics—often from reforming or modern scholarly perspectives—argue that canons emerge from complex historical processes that involve councils, liturgical usage, and political dynamics as much as divine revelation. See Apostolic Succession and Canon (Biblical) underpinned Jewish authority, while early Christians increasingly used the Septuagint as their scriptural base, which included additional writings.
  • Doctrinal implications: The inclusion of material such as prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees and other texts has implications for doctrines such as purgatory and intercessory prayer. Traditional Catholics and many Orthodox see these as supportive of a broader theological vision, while Protestants have often rejected these ideas as non-canonical or insufficiently anchored in apostolic teaching. See 2 Maccabees and discussions of Purgatory in related articles.
  • Historical reliability and literary character: Critics question the historical accuracy or the literary purposes of apocryphal works, while defenders argue that historical memory, moral instruction, and religious insight can be valuable even if a text is not a straightforward historical record. This debate intersects with modern discussions of Historical criticism and literary analysis.
  • Woke critiques and traditional perspectives: Some modern readings emphasize broader inclusion of ancient writings as a way to understand religious history, culture, and ethics. A traditional view often stresses fidelity to historical canons, the role of church authority, and the value of ancient documents within their proper theological framework. Critics who push for broader inclusion may be accused by traditional voices of reinterpreting scripture to fit contemporary agendas; supporters counter that opening the canon undermines authoritative tradition and the stability of doctrine. The debate proceeds within broader conversations about how best to relate ancient texts to contemporary life, scholarship, and faith communities.

See also