Article 8: Why the Apocrypha Is Not Scripture (WCF 1.3)
Within Protestantism, the most evident departure from Roman Catholic teaching on the canon revolves around the status of the so-called “Apocrypha”—a set of texts included in the Vulgate and recognized as “deuterocanonical” by the Council of Trent (1546), yet categorically excluded by the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1.3). These writings—Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and appended portions to Esther and Daniel—were never part of the Hebrew Bible, nor cited by Christ or His apostles as divinely authoritative. Article 8 explains the Reformed rationale for rejecting these books as canonical, how the early church treated them, and why the Confession stands firm in labeling them as having “no authority in the Church of God.”
1. Identifying the Apocrypha: A Brief Overview
1.1. The Term “Apocrypha”
Traditionally, “Apocrypha” designates those books or additions that appear in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Latin Vulgate but not in the Hebrew canon. Roman Catholicism calls them “deuterocanonical,” implying a secondary but still genuine canonicity. The Council of Trent, in the 16th century, raised these texts to full canonical status for Catholic churches, thereby finalizing a canonical list more expansive than either the Jewish or the mainstream early Christian enumerations.
1.2. Historical Complexity
Though some early church fathers quoted these Apocryphal writings in homilies or spiritual reflections, there was no unanimous patristic consensus that they were Scripture. Indeed, Jerome (4th century), revered translator of the Latin Vulgate, insisted that these were not part of the Hebrew Bible and thus not on the same footing as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Augustine, while more willing to cite certain Apocrypha for edification, never provided a conclusive argument that they should be used to determine doctrine. Even many who cited them as beneficial reading refrained from calling them canonical in the strongest sense.
Key Insight: Ambiguity or broad usage by some fathers does not equate to universal acceptance. By the time of the medieval period, the West’s reliance on the Vulgate, which included these works, blurred lines over their authority—paving the way for later debates at the Reformation.
2. The Council of Trent’s Elevation of the Apocrypha
2.1. Tridentine Decree (1546)
Reacting against Protestant appeals to the Hebrew canon, the fourth session of the Council of Trent proclaimed these additional writings “sacred and canonical.” Furthermore, it anathematized anyone denying their equal status with the other biblical books. This decree served to clarify Roman Catholic teaching in direct opposition to Reformation-era confessions, which insisted on the 66-book canon.
Historical Context: Trent’s stance was arguably less about discovering new evidence and more about cementing a bulwark against Protestant critiques of Catholic dogmas (e.g., purgatory, indulgences, prayers for the dead, some of which Catholics derived partly from 2 Maccabees 12:44–46). By including Maccabees in the canon, Rome could appeal to it for theological justification.
2.2. Divergent Protestant Convictions
From Luther’s earliest writings, through Calvin and Zwingli, to William Whitaker’s meticulous scholarship, Protestants consistently challenged the Apocrypha’s canonical status. They pointed to the Apocrypha’s historical errors (e.g., in Tobit), doctrinal incongruities (e.g., a soteriology that contradicts canonical Scripture), and lack of recognition by ancient Judaism, which was entrusted with the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2).
Hence, by the time the Westminster Assembly convened in the 1640s, it was axiomatic within Reformed circles that these Apocryphal materials were not God-breathed and thus could not serve as an authoritative basis for doctrine or practice.
3. The Westminster Confession’s Rejection of the Apocrypha
3.1. WCF 1.3: “Of No Authority … Than Other Human Writings”
WCF 1.3 reads: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.” This unequivocal language stands in direct opposition to Trent’s decree. Whereas Trent enshrines these texts as “sacred and canonical,” the Confession dismisses them as “human writings”—worthy of study for historical or literary benefit, but no more.
3.2. Underlying Principles
- Jewish Canon: Jesus and the apostles uniformly referenced the Old Testament in its Hebrew form, never citing the Apocryphal materials as normative.
- Patristic Testimony: Key early theologians, particularly Jerome and Rufinus, distinguished the Apocrypha as “ecclesiastical” but not “canonical.”
- Contradictions and Historical Errors: Apocryphal books sometimes contain theological ideas or historical statements at odds with the recognized 66-book canon. For instance, parts of Tobit and Judith present inconsistencies or improbable narratives.
- Church Recognition: The universal church for centuries did not unify around these books as part of the canonical deposit, despite certain local usages (especially in Alexandrian contexts).
By adducing these arguments, the Confession sets forth a cohesive Reformed stance that underscores “no authority” can be ascribed to these additional writings.
4. William Whitaker’s Defense Against the Apocrypha
4.1. A Disputation on Holy Scripture
Whitaker’s treatise dedicates substantial space to analyzing patristic, historical, and textual evidence that the Apocrypha did not meet the criteria of canonicity shared by the genuine Old Testament. He marshals explicit statements from Jerome (the Prologus Galeatus) and the Jewish historian Josephus, who recognized only the Hebrew canon.
Key Whitaker Argument: If these works were truly canonical, they would appear among the Hebrew Scriptures used by Christ. Yet no first-century Jewish source includes them; indeed, the Talmudic tradition and other rabbinic materials uniformly reference the same Hebrew books that Protestants recognize (39 total in modern enumeration). The Apocrypha emerges prominently only in Greek versions (the LXX) or subsequent Latin tradition, absent the stamp of early Jewish recognition.
4.2. Early Church Fathers and Councils
Another angle Whitaker takes is the patristic record:
- Origen: Affirmed the standard Hebrew canon, enumerating books that correspond to Protestant enumerations.
- Athanasius: Listed canonical books in his Festal Letter 39 (AD 367), excluding the Apocrypha from the official Old Testament.
- Cyril of Jerusalem: In his Catechetical Lectures, also delineated a canon without Apocryphal inclusions.
While Augustine’s North African councils (Hippo, Carthage) sometimes appear to endorse a broader canon, Whitaker clarifies that these were regional, not ecumenical, and that even Augustine’s usage of Apocryphal texts never matched the direct authority he accorded to canonical writings. Ultimately, Whitaker’s conclusion dovetails with the WCF: the Apocrypha should be read, if at all, as historical or devotional material, but never as the Word of God.
5. Examining Some Apocryphal Claims
5.1. Doctrinal Tensions
Protestant criticisms commonly point to “works-righteousness” or unbiblical prayers for the dead as found in Apocryphal texts. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:44–46 implies benefits for the deceased from offerings, clashing with the consistent scriptural teaching on the finality of death and the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement (Heb. 9:27–28). The WCF, staunchly emphasizing salvation by grace alone, rejects any foundation for purgatorial concepts drawn from these non-canonical sources.
Additionally, certain Apocryphal writings imply redemptive efficacy in almsgiving (Tobit 12:8–9). While canonical Scripture commends charity, it does not ground salvation in such works. Hence, Reformed theology sees the Apocrypha as occasionally veering from the gospel’s core, generating confusion if treated as equal to the canonical books.
5.2. Historical Inaccuracies
Judith, for example, situates Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in Nineveh, conflating distinct historical epochs and locales. Tobit presents chronological and geographical difficulties that scholars across church history have flagged. The Reformed tradition argues that canonical Scripture, though occasionally challenging in chronology, does not present the sort of obvious historical misalignments found in some Apocryphal narratives. Thus, the Apocrypha’s frequent confusion or conflation of historical events stands at odds with the general historical reliability that characterizes canonical Scripture.
6. Practical and Theological Ramifications
6.1. No Doctrinal Authority, No Ecclesial Binding
Since the Confession affirms the Apocrypha’s exclusion from the canon, it follows that no doctrine or moral duty can be established or proven solely from these texts. Thus, Reformed churches reject the medieval Roman reliance on 2 Maccabees for purgatory or prayers for the departed. Instead, they adhere strictly to the 66 canonical books for all matters of faith and worship. Practically, this means the Apocrypha does not appear in Reformed lectionaries or sermon series, nor is it used in dogmatic definitions.
6.2. Edification vs. Canonical Status
WCF 1.3 does not forbid reading the Apocrypha altogether. Rather, it states these books may be used “as other human writings,” that is, for historical knowledge or personal edification, much like we might read any valuable Christian literature. Yet the Confession’s stance remains that only the canonical 66 truly carry the Holy Spirit’s infallible inspiration. Confessional bibliology underscores that God, in His providence, kept pure the genuine Old Testament corpus; the Apocrypha fell outside that custodial care and thus should not be equated with covenant Scripture.
6.3. Maintaining a Pure Gospel
A crucial concern for the Reformation was preserving the gospel’s clarity. Martin Luther observed that many doctrines tied to the Apocrypha, especially in late-medieval theology, distorted the free grace of Christ or introduced speculative beliefs absent from the genuine Bible. WCF 1.6–1.7 accentuate Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity, so adding extraneous texts with uncertain or contradictory teachings jeopardizes the clarity of salvific truth. By refusing to treat Apocryphal writings as authoritative, Reformed confessions ensure that the gospel stands unadulterated by claims that are not grounded in the divinely inspired canon.
7. Objections Considered
7.1. Alleged Patristic Support
Roman apologists often quote patristic sources where the Apocrypha is called “Scripture” or read in liturgy. However, confessional scholars like Whitaker demonstrate that the fathers’ usage was inconsistent: the same fathers repeatedly distinguish them from the recognized Hebrew books. The fact that some Apocryphal texts appear in certain early canonical lists (e.g., the North African councils) reflects local or partial acceptance, not ecumenical unanimity. Moreover, even those few patristic sources who used Apocryphal references for homiletical embellishment did not typically elevate them to a basis for establishing dogma.
7.2. Accusations of “Canon Reduction”
Critics might charge the Protestant Reformation with “reducing” the Old Testament. The Reformed reply is that the early Jewish community—custodians of the Old Testament revelation—recognized precisely the 39 canonical books, and neither Christ nor His apostles indicated any further corpus. Thus, confessional Protestants see themselves not as reducing the canon but restoring the inherited limit observed by Christ. They argue that the medieval or Tridentine inclusion of the Apocrypha is, historically speaking, the addition to the recognized Word of God.
8. Conclusion
WCF 1.3’s declaration that the Apocrypha is “no part of the canon of Scripture” and has “no authority in the Church of God” underscores a decisive Reformed position, historically grounded in:
- Christ’s and the Apostles’ reliance on the Hebrew canon
- Early Jewish and patristic testimonies excluding these writings from the recognized corpus
- An absence of coherent evidence from the early universal church that these books were foundational for doctrine
- Doctrinal and historical incongruities that render them unsuitable to the standard of fully inspired Scripture.
From William Whitaker’s rigorous catalog of patristic witnesses to the modern confessional bibliology approach, the Reformed tradition consistently denies to the Apocrypha any status beyond that of ecclesiastical or historical works. While they can be read for cultural or devotional insight, the Apocrypha cannot bind Christian conscience, shape doctrine, or correct canonical Scripture. Their late and disputed acceptance in certain sectors of Christendom, culminating in Trent’s decree, in no way overturns the abiding principle that the 66 canonical books alone comprise the Word of God.
In practical terms, this stance protects the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture as taught in WCF 1.6–1.7, ensuring the church’s theology rests solely on the God-breathed writings whose authority Christ and His apostles so clearly attest. By rejecting the Apocrypha, Reformed confessions stand in continuity with much of the early church and, indeed, with the canonical boundaries historically recognized by the Hebrew community itself. This unwavering perspective preserves the purity of the gospel message and safeguards believers against doctrines that lack firm foundation in the covenantal canon of God’s inspired Word.
