Protestant Rejection of Apocryphal Books in Canon
The Protestant rejection of apocryphal books in the canon of Scripture is rooted in their understanding of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. The term "canon" refers to the collection of books that are considered authoritative and divinely inspired [1]. Protestant Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, questioned the inclusion of certain books in the Old Testament, known as the Apocrypha, which were present in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Latin Vulgate.
The Apocrypha includes books such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom of Solomon, among others. While these books were considered important by early Christians, Protestants argued that they were not part of the original Hebrew canon and were not quoted by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament [2]. Calvin, for example, noted that the Apocrypha was not considered part of the canonical Scriptures by the Jews, and therefore should not be considered authoritative by Christians [3].
In contrast, the Catholic Church, as affirmed by the Council of Trent, considered the Apocrypha to be part of the canonical Scriptures, citing the authority of tradition and the early Church Fathers [7]. The Eastern Orthodox Church also includes the Apocrypha in its canon, although it does not necessarily consider them to be of equal authority to the rest of Scripture [4].
The Lutheran tradition, as represented by the Augsburg Confession, also rejected certain "abuses" and "new" practices not grounded in Scripture, but did not explicitly exclude the Apocrypha from the canon [9]. The Anglican tradition, as reflected in the Thirty-Nine Articles, rejected certain "Romish" doctrines not supported by Scripture, but retained the Apocrypha in its liturgical practices [6].
Protestant theologians, such as Charles Hodge, argued that the canon of Scripture should be determined by the authority of the original languages and the testimony of the early Church, rather than by ecclesiastical tradition [5, 8]. They also pointed out that the Apocrypha contains historical and doctrinal errors, and that its inclusion in the canon would undermine the authority of Scripture [2].
The Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is not merely a matter of canonical boundaries, but also reflects a deeper theological commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. As Calvin noted, the Bible is the "rule of faith and practice" for Christians, and its authority is not to be supplemented by extra-biblical traditions or texts [3].
Sources
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Canon Of Scripture, The — may be generally described as the "collection of books which form the original and authoritative written rule of the faith and practice of the Christian Church," i.e. the Old and New Testaments. The word canon, in classical Greek, is properly a straight rod, "a rule" in the widest sense, and especially in the phrases "the rule of the Church," "the rule of faith," "the rule of truth," The first direct application of the term canon to the Scriptures seems to be in the verses of Amphilochius (cir. 380 A.D.), where the word indicates the rule by ”
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Apocrypha — Hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word. (1.) They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it. (2.) These books we”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 1, section 10.8: , where his version is, And they shall not be written in the writing , that is, in the catalogue, of my people . — Ed. Now, although God has no other book than his eternal counsel, in which he has predestinated us to salvation by adopting us for his children, yet this comparison is exceedingly suitable to our weakness, because in no other way could our mind conceive that God’s flock is known to him, so that none of the elect can ever be deprived of eternal life. Since, therefore, God has the names of his people in some manner written down, th”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: Bibles the sentiments they set forth, and to write them in your minds. The Jews because they gave no heed were commanded to suspend their books from their hands; 1468 1468 The Tephillim. but we place them not even in our hands but in our house, when we ought to stamp them on our heart. Thus cleansing our present life, we shall obtain the good things that are to come to which may we all attain, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, now and ever, and world witho”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 33: § 2. Roman Catholic Doctrine concerning the Scriptures. On this subject Romanists agree with Protestants, (1.) In teaching the plenary inspiration and consequent infallible authority of the sacred writings. Of these writings the Council of Trent says that God is their author, and that they were written by the dictation of the Holy Spirit (“ Spiritu sancto dictante. ”) 105 (2.) They agree with us in receiving into the sacred canon all the books which we regard as of divine authority. Romanists differ from Protestants in regard to the Scrip”
- Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican) “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican, 1571), Section 254: The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”
- Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent on Justification (Catholic) “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent on Justification (Catholic, 1547), Bible Version: Bible Version Disable scripture popups King James Version American Standard Version World English Bible Show footnotes When clicked On the bottom On the side Reader Width Tags:”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 40: Word of God. When we refer to the Bible as 153 of divine authority, we refer to it as a volume and recognize all the writings which it contains as given by the inspiration of the Spirit. In like manner when Christ or his Apostles quote the “Scriptures,” or the “law and the prophets,” and speak of the volume then so called, they give their sanction to the divine authority of all the books which that volume contained. All, therefore, that is necessary to determine for Christians the canon of the Old Testament, is to ascertain what books wer”
- Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) “Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), 10 Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the: 10 Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. 11 Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who,”