In this series, I will explore some of the key differences between the Protestant and Catholic traditions and explain why, in most of these cases, I believe the Protestant position to be correct. In a previous post, I have already made the case for why the Protestant idea that Scripture alone is our highest Authority is more reasonable than the Catholic idea that Scripture and Church Tradition are equal in Authority. Since the question of where our theological Authority lies is in some sense foundational for all other theological issues, anyone reading this series should first read that post in order to understand where I am coming from in my attitude towards theological Authority.
Catholic vs. Protestant Canons
Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is the Divinely Authoritative word of God. But they do not agree on exactly which writings should be considered to be Scripture. The Protestant canon of Scripture consists of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. The Catholic canon of Scripture consists of the Protestant canon, plus an additional 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) added to the Old Testament, for a total of 46 Old Testament books. Protestants refer to these 7 additional books as the Apocrypha, and do not consider them to be part of the canon of Scripture.
Catholic apologists often accuse Protestants of having removed the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture because its theological teachings contradicted Protestant theology. However, this is simply not true. The Apocrypha does not contain any major theological teachings that contradict traditional Protestant theology. The only possible exception is 2 Maccabees 12: 39-45, which tells of Judas Maccabeus offering prayers and sin offerings for some dead, sinful Jews, so that God might forgive them. Some see this passage as providing support for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. However, this passage does not actually say anything about a place of punishment and purgation in between death and resurrection. Nor does praying for dead people’s sins to be forgiven necessarily imply belief in any kind of Purgatory. So even in this case, it is not clear that the Apocrypha ever clearly contradicts Protestant theology.[1]This is not to mention the fact that there are some Protestants who believe in the existence of Purgatory.
The fact is, the Protestant tradition did not actually condemn the Apocrypha or try to prevent people from reading it. Traditionally, Protestant Bibles were printed with the Apocrypha included as an appendix. The only reason Protestant Bibles stopped including the Apocrypha was to reduce printing costs. The traditional Protestant position regarding the Apocrypha was that they are good and useful books, but they do not have the status of Scripture. Therefore, they should not be regarded as theologically Authoritative.
The real reason that Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as part of Scripture is that these writings were never accepted as Scripture by the Jewish people. The Protestant Old Testament canon is identical to the Jewish canon of Scripture, which was finalized in the first century A.D. at the latest. When the Jewish Scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek beginning in the third century B.C., a number of other Jewish writings were added to this collection of Greek Jewish writings, which became known as the Septuagint. However, these additional writings, some of which now make up the Apocrypha, were never accepted as Scripture by the Jewish people.
Catholic apologists, however, can argue that just because these writings were not accepted as Scripture by the Jewish people, that does not mean that they cannot be accepted as Scripture by the Church. And they can point to cases where early Church fathers cite books from the Apocrypha as if they were Scripture.
In response, yes, there are cases where some early Church fathers cite Apocryphal books as if they were Scripture. However, there are also cases where they cite books which no Christian today accepts as Scripture (e.g., Enoch, Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas) as if they were Scripture. There was some uncertainty and disagreement in the early Church concerning exactly which writings should be considered part of the New Testament canon before it was officially finalized in the fourth century. We should not be surprised that there was some similar uncertainty and disagreement in the early Church regarding the Old Testament canon as well.
Church Fathers on the Old Testament Canon
Speaking of the finalization of the New Testament canon, St. Athanasius was the first Church father we know of to draw up a New Testament canon that exactly matches the New Testament canon accepted by all Christians today. If we are wondering what the Old Testament canon should be, perhaps we should listen to what he had to say on this topic as well. In his 39th festal letter, Athanasius lists his version of both the Old Testament and New Testament canons.[2]A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Second Series, Volume IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1891), Page 552. His Old Testament does include the Apocryphal book of Baruch, and (strangely) lacks the book of Esther. But it includes none of the other Apocryphal books, making it much closer to the Protestant canon than the Catholic Old Testament canon.
St. Cyril is another fourth century saint who weighed in on the issue of the Old Testament canon. In his fourth catechetical lecture, he gives his version of the Old Testament canon, which almost exactly matches the Protestant Old Testament canon. The only exception is that, like Athanasius, he includes Baruch. Cyril comments, “have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church.”[3]NPNF, Second Series, Volume VII (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1893), Page 27. This strongly implies that, at the time of St. Cyril, the other books of the Apocrypha were not used as Scripture in church liturgy.
Another fourth century saint who weighed in on the issue of the Old Testament canon was St. Jerome. Jerome, considered a “Doctor of the Church” by the Catholic Church, was by far one of the greatest biblical scholars of the early Church, and was responsible for the famous Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible, used by the Catholic Church to this day. So, we should take his opinion about the Old Testament canon seriously. In his preface to Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists an Old Testament canon that exactly matches the Protestant Old Testament canon, and comments, “We may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apocryphal writings.”[4]NPNF, Second Series, Volume VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892), Pages 489-490. In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, Jerome makes clear his view of the Apocryphal writings: “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read [Wisdom and Sirach] for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”[5]NPNF, Second Series, Volume VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892), Page 492. This is very similar to the traditional Protestant view of the Apocrypha: they are good books to read, but they do not have the status of Authoritative Scripture.
In response to this support for the Protestant Old Testament canon from these fourth century Church Fathers, Catholic apologists can argue that not everything every Church father said should be accepted. And they can point out that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which separated from the Western Church in the eleventh century, also accepts the Apocrypha as Scripture. Therefore, the Apocrypha must have already been accepted by the whole Church as Scripture before that time.
In response, yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the Apocrypha as Scripture. However, it also includes a number of other writings in its Old Testament canon that are not part of the Catholic canon: 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 Esdras. This shows that the Old Testament canon had not been fixed and was still an open question in the eleventh century. Over the centuries, some Apocryphal writings had gradually come to be regarded as Scripture by many in both the eastern and western parts of the Church. But this is just one way among many that church tradition had drifted away from the teachings of the apostles and the early Church Fathers by this time. Sometimes, church tradition drifts in certain directions for no good reason, and we must look back to the apostles and the early Church Fathers and ask if these changes are really reasonable and faithful.
Given that the Jewish people never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, we have no good reason to think that Jesus or His apostles regarded it as Scripture. And some important, authoritative voices among the early Church fathers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Given this, the most reasonable position to take regarding the Old Testament canon is to accept the Protestant canon and to regard the Apocrypha as lacking the status of Divinely Authoritative Scripture.
Notes
| ↑1 | This is not to mention the fact that there are some Protestants who believe in the existence of Purgatory. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Second Series, Volume IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1891), Page 552. |
| ↑3 | NPNF, Second Series, Volume VII (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1893), Page 27. |
| ↑4 | NPNF, Second Series, Volume VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892), Pages 489-490. |
| ↑5 | NPNF, Second Series, Volume VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892), Page 492. |