The Old Testament Apocrypha

It seems to me that one of the saddest injustices done within the realm of Christian literature took place a long time ago, with the ostracizing of the Apocrypha (aka, Deuterocanonical Books) of the Old Testament within protestant circles. A controversy that began in the reformation and came to a head in the 1600s, outside of Catholic and Orthodox circles these books came to be regarded as though they were counterfeit scriptures and most protestant Bibles and publishers refused to print them.

Perhaps the worst part about all of that is that the reasoning largely seems to lay, not in the content of the books in question, but in the idea, during the conflict between Catholics and protestants following the reformation (which became quite ugly and violent), that the Apocrypha was “Catholic” and therefore unworthy of respect, distribution or study.

As to what the Apocrypha actually is, it is a series of books which were written during the “inter-testamental” period, or the period of time between the writing of the Old Testament and the events of the New. This period spans a few hundred years, during which a lot of significant Jewish history took place, some of which (such as the conquering and attempted overthrow of the Jewish nation and religious practices by the Greeks and, in particular, the Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes) had been clearly prophesied by Daniel. Several historical and educational books written during this period were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called The Septuagint. These books consisted of wisdom literature, historical narratives and in a couple of cases religious fiction designed to teach morality and devotion to God. In the reformation, as these books were translated from Greek and the Latin Vulgate into the common tongues of the reformers, they were set apart from the rest of the Old Testament owing to their later, non-Hebrew origin (as compared to the rest of the Old Testament) and though still distributed as important works they were not accepted as part of the divinely-inspired canon of Scripture. Possibly contributing to their eventual rejection and loss in protestant circles was the Catholic church’s decision at the Council of Trent in 1546 to affirm that many of these books (with few exceptions, those that were included in the Latin Vulgate) are inspired and therefore canon. Within about 100 years, the attitude amongst protestants with regard to the Apocrypha was largely hostile.

This is extraordinarily unfortunate because, as the earliest reformers attested, these books are highly valuable both for historical context and because they were written by godly men during an uproarious period of Jewish history who sought to turn their brothers and sisters toward God, asserting God’s provision and care of his people and affirming the hope of salvation. Take, for example, the following passage from The Book of Wisdom (sometimes referred to as The Wisdom of Solomon), which speaks of how the unwise and the wicked regard the righteous:  “’Let us lay traps for the upright man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our sins against the Law, and accuses us of sins against our upbringing. He claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. We see him as a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; for his kind of life is not like other people's, and his ways are quite different. In his opinion we are counterfeit; he avoids our ways as he would filth; he proclaims the final end of the upright as blessed and boasts of having God for his father. Let us see if what he says is true, and test him to see what sort of end he will have. For if the upright man is God's son, God will help him and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of his and put his patience to the test. Let us condemn him to a shameful death since God will rescue him -- or so he claims.' This is the way they reason, but they are misled, since their malice makes them blind.” –Wisdom 2, NJB

Compare that passage with the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels. Historically this passage has often been taken as prophesy of the suffering of Christ. It certainly follows it very closely, even to the statements the Pharisees made while mocking Him.

Now, whether this passage is or is not prophesy has little to do with whether the book should be accepted as part of the Old Testament cannon. If we regarded it as canonical scripture every time God gave a message to someone, the Bible would be a library of books authored by countless millions of pastors, evangelists and lay-persons. But it IS theologically orthodox and a beautiful exposition on a scriptural truth. And the Apocrypha as a whole is filled with such passages.

The point, then, is that we ought to respect and study the works of Godly authors throughout history. I myself have a particular fondness for the works of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, two devote men of 20th century England, one Anglican, the other Catholic. But if we have regard for authors who wrote within resent history and provide such insight into scripture, should we not have equal regard for those works that came before, which shine a light on the Old Testament as well as the New? I do not argue for the canonization of the Apocrypha, but I do argue that it ought to be respected as an excellent, worthwhile piece of Biblical literature to be read and studied and benefited from, much like the works of Lewis and Chesterton.