The Unshakeable Foundation: Why Every Word Matters

Paragraph 3: The books often referred to as the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired. This means they are not part of the Bible’s official Canon or its authoritative guide. Consequently, they hold no authority for the church and should not be treated as anything more than other human writings. If there is any practical value of the Apocrypha, it is strictly limited to non-doctrinal uses. It could be helpful for historical background and cultural understanding, much like any other ancient literature, but never a source of divine truth or authority.

​

This exposition was made possible with a lot of help from sources like Britannica, BibleQuestions.info, GotQuestions, Blue Letter Bible, Lifeway, The Gospel Coalition, Ligonier Ministries, and a few other great books. If you want to engage in an in-depth study on the canon of the Scriptures, we highly recommend Michael Kruger’s series on the topic, and James White, too. They are searchable on YouTube.

​

First of all: What is the Biblical Canon?

The Canon of the Scriptures is the collection of all the books that are recognized as the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. The term "canon" comes from a Greek word meaning "measuring rod" or "standard," and in this context, it signifies that these books are the definitive rule for faith and life.

Now, you may be thinking that the biblical canon was formed by a single committee that sat down and decided which books to include, like a boardroom meeting for the Bible. But here's the plot twist: it didn't happen that way at all. Instead, the canon was a slow, organic process of providential recognition. Think of it less like a committee creating a list, and more like a community of believers, guided by the Holy Spirit, simply acknowledging the books that were already being used, believed, and recognized as the authoritative Word of God.

The books themselves carried the authority; the Church’s job was simply to discover and affirm it.

In the case of the Old Testament, the Old Testament canon was largely established by the Jewish community long before the time of Christ. It was recognized based on the writings of the prophets and their inherent divine authority. Jesus and the apostles affirmed this established collection, treating it as the complete Word of God. 

The New Testament canon, on the other hand, also developed organically over several centuries. And we want you to understand that the early church did not have a single formal meeting to "create" the canon. Instead, it was a process of gradual recognition based on key criteria that were applied to circulating writings. The first lecture of Michael Kruger is very helpful in this regard.

Early lists of accepted books, like the Muratorian Fragment from the late 2nd century, show that many of the books we have in our New Testament today were already recognized as authoritative.  While some books were debated for a time, councils like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) did not create the canon but rather formally affirmed the list of books that had already been widely accepted and used by the churches.

​

Let’s now come to The Nature of the Canon

God-Breathed (Inspired): The most fundamental belief is that the books of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit. As 2 Timothy 3:16 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed." The authority of these books comes from their divine origin, not from any human decision. God determined which books belong in the canon, and the church's role was to recognize them, not to create them. The keyword is recognize

The Church's Role: The church did not grant authority to the books of the Bible. Rather, the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognized the inherent authority that these books already possessed. The process of canonization was one of discovery and reception, not of selection and creation. The church was the recipient of God's Word, and it identified which writings were truly the Word of God and which were not. Now, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the authority of the canon is inseparable from the authority of the Church itself. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, authoritatively determined which books belong in the canon. This position views Scripture and Sacred Tradition as two distinct, but equally important sources of divine revelation. But the Protestants hold that the canon is self-authenticating, meaning the books are authoritative because they are inspired by God. The Church's role was to recognize this inherent authority. This view is summarized by the principle of sola Scriptura, which asserts that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. The treasure hunter analogy works well to explain the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. Just as a treasure hunter doesn't create the diamonds but simply recognizes their inherent value and sparkle among the rocks and mud, the Church didn't create the biblical canon. Instead, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, recognized the divinely inspired books based on their unique, inherent qualities. The diamonds are diamonds regardless of whether the treasure hunter finds them. They are self-authenticating—their authenticity is evident in their very nature. In the same way, the books of the Bible are the authoritative Word of God regardless of human recognition. The Church's role was one of discovery and reception, not of establishment or creation. 

The Canon is Closed: Reformed churches believe that the canon of Scripture is complete and closed. The special, foundational revelation given through the prophets and apostles has ceased. Therefore, there can be no new books added to the Old or New Testaments.

​

 The Process of Canonization

The recognition of the canonical books was a process that unfolded over time, guided by specific criteria. This process was not a sudden event at a single church council, but a gradual and providential recognition by the people of God.

​

For the Old Testament:

Prophetic Authorship: The books of the Old Testament were recognized as God's Word because they were written by God's inspired prophets. The authority was linked to the office of the prophet.

Jewish Recognition: The Old Testament canon was firmly established within the Jewish community long before the time of Christ. Jesus and the apostles affirmed this established collection of books as "Scripture" and the "Word of God."

​

Rejection of the Apocrypha: Protestants do not consider the books of the Apocrypha to be canonical. They see these books as historically and religiously interesting but not divinely inspired. This position is based on the fact that the Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew Bible canon affirmed by the Jewish people, nor was it consistently treated as Scripture by Jesus or the apostles.

​

When was the Old Testament Canon Settled?

The historical arguments for the completion of the Old Testament canon around 400 BC are not based on a single decree or council but rather on the recognition of the cessation of prophetic activity and the consistent witness of Jewish and early Christian sources. The Old Testament canon wasn't created by men; it was a divine reality that was simply acknowledged by God's people.

​

The Cessation of Prophecy – The most significant argument is that divine, prophetic revelation ceased with the ministry of Malachi. The Jewish people, with the return from exile and the rebuilding of the temple, entered a period of silence from God. This 400-year "intertestamental period" was marked by the absence of a prophet speaking directly to the nation with God's authority. This silence was keenly felt and is a core part of Jewish tradition. The fact that the New Testament begins with John the Baptist, a prophet in the spirit of Elijah, is a powerful indicator that the prophetic silence had been broken.

​

The Testimony of Josephus – The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus provides a crucial historical witness. In his work Against Apion, he states that the Jews had a fixed and limited number of sacred books, which were considered to be divine. He explicitly says that no one had dared to add to, subtract from, or alter these books since the time of Artaxerxes, the Persian king who reigned around the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 465-424 BC). This period aligns with the ministry of the last Old Testament prophet, Malachi. Josephus's testimony is a powerful, non-Christian witness to a closed Jewish canon well before the time of Christ.

​

The New Testament Witness – The New Testament itself consistently treats the Old Testament as a fixed, authoritative collection of writings. Jesus and the apostles often quote from the Old Testament, but never from the Apocryphal books, treating the "Law and the Prophets" as the complete and final word of God. Jesus's own words in Matthew 23:35, where he refers to the murders from "Abel...to Zechariah," are interpreted by many scholars to be a reference to the first and last murders recorded in the Hebrew canonical order, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, affirming the books we now call the Old Testament as a complete set.

​

Early Christian and Jewish Consensus – While there were some debates about certain books later on, figures like the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – 50 AD) and the early Christian scholar Jerome (c. 347-420 AD) affirmed the Hebrew canon. Philo speaks of the three-part division of the Jewish scriptures (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), and Jerome, in his Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), intentionally distinguished the Apocryphal books from the Hebrew canon, arguing that the former were not part of the divinely inspired collection. This reflects a broad, historical consensus that the Old Testament canon was a defined and accepted body of literature from the time of its completion.

​

What about the Apocrypha?

The Apocrypha refers to a collection of Jewish texts, written largely between the Old and New Testaments, that are not considered part of the standard biblical canon by many Protestant denominations. These books are included in some Bibles, such as those used by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, but often as a separate section or not at all in Protestant Bibles.  

​

The Apocrypha includes books like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. The term "Apocrypha" comes from the Greek word meaning "hidden away" or "obscure." These texts were originally written in Greek, though some may have originated in Hebrew or Aramaic. They were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by many early Christians. 

Protestants reject the Apocrypha for several key reasons, primarily centered on the conviction that these books lack divine authority and were not part of the inspired Old Testament canon. This stance aligns with the broader Protestant Reformation's view and is rooted in both historical and theological arguments.

Lack of Jewish Acceptance – The most compelling historical argument is that the Jewish people never considered the Apocrypha to be part of their inspired scriptures. The Hebrew canon was closed around 400 BC, at the end of the prophetic era with Malachi. Writings like those of the first-century historian Flavius Josephus explicitly state that the Jews had a fixed number of sacred books and that no new writings had been added since the time of Artaxerxes.

​

No New Testament Endorsement – Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever quoted from the Apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture. While the New Testament quotes from or alludes to almost every book of the Hebrew Old Testament, it consistently avoids doing so with the Apocrypha. This silence is seen as a powerful indication that Jesus and his followers did not consider these writings to be the inspired Word of God.

Doctrinal Contradictions and Historical Errors – Reformed Baptists argue that the Apocryphal books contain theological teachings and historical inaccuracies that are incompatible with the canonical Scriptures. For example:

Contradictory Doctrines: The book of 2 Maccabees contains a passage that appears to support prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45-46), a doctrine that Reformed theology rejects as contrary to the biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone through faith.

Inconsistencies: The book of Tobit contains elements of superstition, such as using fish organs to exorcise demons (Tobit 6:1-8), which is not found in the rest of the Bible. The book of Judith also contains historical and geographical errors.

Lack of Prophetic Character: The Apocryphal books themselves lack the prophetic tone and claim to divine inspiration found in the canonical books. Some of the authors of the Apocryphal books even acknowledge the absence of a prophet in their day, effectively admitting that their writings are not a part of the divine prophetic tradition. For example, 1 Maccabees 4:46 refers to the Jews waiting for a "trustworthy prophet to arise" and 1 Maccabees 9:27 states that "there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that a prophet was not seen among them."

No Divine Inspiration: The books of the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired and, therefore, are not part of the canon of Scripture. They do not carry the authority of God and cannot be used to establish Christian doctrine.

Historical Rejection by Church Fathers: While some early church fathers used the Apocrypha for historical or devotional purposes, prominent figures like Jerome (who translated the Latin Vulgate) rejected them as being on par with the canonical Old Testament. He argued that they were useful for "example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." This position, known as the "Hebraic truth" argument, was influential and was later embraced by the Protestant Reformers.

Historical Value, Not Doctrinal Authority: While the Apocrypha is not considered canonical, we acknowledge its value for historical and cultural context. These books can provide insight into the four hundred-year period between the Old and New Testaments, which can help readers better understand the world of the New Testament.

​

For the New Testament:

The recognition of the New Testament books was guided by several key criteria, which the early church applied to various writings:

Apostolic Authorship: Was the book written by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle (e.g., Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul)? The apostles were given unique authority by Christ to establish the foundation of the church and to deliver his definitive revelation.

Universal Reception: Was the book widely accepted and used as Scripture by the early Christian churches? Books that were consistently read in worship services and used for teaching across a broad geographical area were more likely to be recognized as canonical.

Orthodoxy: Did the book's teaching align with the established body of apostolic truth? Writings that contradicted the core doctrines of the faith were rejected as heretical.

Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit: This is a key Reformed concept. While historical evidence is important, the ultimate confirmation of the canon comes from the internal witness of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers. The Holy Spirit enables believers to recognize the "voice of the Master" in the inspired books, giving them a sure and certain conviction that they are indeed the Word of God.

Gnostic Writings – e.g. The Gospel of Barnabas

The Gospel of Barnabas was rejected from the New Testament canon because it failed to meet the essential criteria for canonicity. The early church determined a book's divine authority based on its apostolic origin, orthodox content, and widespread acceptance. The Gospel of Barnabas fails on all these counts.

Lack of Apostolic Authorship – A foundational criterion for a book to be included in the New Testament was that it had to be written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle (e.g., Mark, a companion of Peter; Luke, a companion of Paul). The Gospel of Barnabas was not written by the apostle Barnabas, but is instead a medieval forgery. Scholars date the earliest surviving manuscripts of this gospel to the 15th or 16th century, making it a much later work than any of the canonical gospels. This late dating alone disqualified it from being an eyewitness account of Jesus' life.

Doctrinal and Historical Contradictions – The Gospel of Barnabas's content fundamentally contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. The book:

Denies the Divinity of Jesus: It portrays Jesus as a human prophet, not the Son of God.

Denies the Crucifixion: It claims that Judas Iscariot was crucified in Jesus's place, and Jesus ascended to heaven unharmed.

Promotes Islamic Teachings: The text contains prophecies of the prophet Muhammad and theological views that align more with Islam than with historic Christianity. For example, it rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.

The canonical gospels, in contrast, consistently affirm Jesus's divinity, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. The Gospel of Barnabas’s theological views were considered heretical and incompatible with the apostolic tradition.

Lack of Early Church Acceptance – Unlike the books that became part of the New Testament, the Gospel of Barnabas was never widely accepted or cited by the early church fathers or in early Christian communities. There is no evidence of its existence until a few manuscripts appeared in the late medieval period. The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, were widely circulated, read, and considered authoritative by Christians across a broad geographical area from the first few centuries of the church. The Gospel of Barnabas simply didn't exist in the form we know it until long after the canon had been settled.

​

Other Gnostic Writings

Besides the Gospel of Barnabas, many other books were rejected from the New Testament canon for similar reasons. These writings are often referred to as New Testament Apocrypha or Gnostic gospels, and they failed to meet the church's criteria of apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and universal acceptance.

Here are some of the most notable examples and the reasons for their rejection:

The Gospel of Thomas

Apostolic Authorship: This book, a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, was not written by the apostle Thomas. Scholars date it to the second century, long after the time of the apostles.

Orthodoxy: It presents a Gnostic view of Christianity, teaching that salvation comes through secret knowledge ("gnosis") rather than through faith in Jesus's death and resurrection. The book has no narrative of Jesus's life, death, or resurrection, and some of its sayings contradict canonical teachings. For instance, it contains a saying where Jesus states that in order for a woman to be saved, she must "make herself male."

The Gospel of Judas

Apostolic Authorship: This text, also a Gnostic work, was not written by Judas Iscariot. It dates to the second century and presents a heretical view of Judas.

Orthodoxy: It portrays Judas as a heroic figure who was asked by Jesus to betray him in order to free Jesus's divine spirit from his physical body. This directly contradicts the New Testament's portrayal of Judas as a traitor and the Christian understanding of Jesus's physical resurrection.

The Shepherd of Hermas

Apostolic Authorship: While this book was popular in the early church, it was known to be written by a man named Hermas in the second century, not by an apostle.

Widespread Acceptance: Some early church leaders considered it useful for moral instruction, but figures like the Muratorian Canon and Tertullian explicitly stated that it was not Scripture and should not be read publicly in churches. Its content, while largely orthodox, was seen as being on a different level of authority than the apostles' writings.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

Apostolic Authorship: This book was a legendary account of Paul and his female disciple, Thecla. It was considered a forgery even by some in the early church. Tertullian, an early church father, recounted that a presbyter who confessed to writing it was removed from his office.

Orthodoxy: The book promoted an unbiblical form of extreme asceticism and celibacy, putting words in Paul's mouth that contradict his teachings in the canonical books (e.g., forbidding marriage in a way that goes against 1 Timothy 4:3). It also contains highly flamboyant and anachronistic stories, such as Thecla baptizing herself.

The Gospel of Peter

Apostolic Authorship: Although it claims to be written by Peter, scholars date it to the second century and believe it is a forgery.

​

Orthodoxy: This gospel contains a docetic Christology, which holds that Jesus's physical body was not real and that he only appeared to suffer and die. The book's account of the crucifixion is particularly at odds with the canonical Gospels, as it describes a cross that talks and walks. This directly contradicts the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the physical reality of Jesus's death and resurrection.

In summary, the books rejected from the New Testament canon failed to pass the "three-legged stool" test of canonicity: they lacked a clear link to an apostle, they contained doctrines that were not in line with the established apostolic teaching, and they did not receive widespread and continuous recognition as authoritative Scripture by the early Christian church.

All in all, the Summarium Fidei Christianae Filipinas holds that the canon of Scripture is a divine reality, not a human invention. The 66 books of the Bible are the authoritative Word of God because they were inspired by God. The church's role was to recognize these books based on their divine qualities, their connection to prophetic and apostolic authority, and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.