← AntinomyApokatastasis →
Apocrypha
/ əˈpok·rɪ·fə /
noun (plural)
From Greek apokryphos (ἀπόκρυφος) — "hidden, concealed, obscure"; from apokryptein (to hide away); from apo- (away) + kryptein (to hide). Initially the term referred to esoteric writings "hidden" from ordinary readers — either too sacred or too suspect for general circulation. The word took on its formal canonical meaning in the patristic period, used by Jerome and others to describe books present in the Greek Septuagint but absent from the Hebrew Bible.

📖 Biblical Definition

Books included in the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate but absent from the Hebrew canon — including 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and additions to Daniel and Esther. Protestant Reformers followed the Hebrew canon (as recognized by Jesus and the apostles, who never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture) and excluded these books from the canonical Bible, placing them in a secondary category: historically valuable, edifying in places, but not authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church declared them "deuterocanonical" at the Council of Trent (1546) — partly in response to the Reformation. The Orthodox churches include additional books. The debate centers on canonical authority, not the historical or literary value of the texts.

📜 Webster 1828 Definition

APOCRYPHA, n. Books whose authors are not known, and which are not considered a part of the sacred canon of scripture, as they were not received by the Jews as part of the Hebrew scriptures. They are annexed to most copies of the Bible, but the Protestant churches do not consider them of divine authority. The Romish church holds them to be canonical.

⚠️ Modern Corruption

Two errors bracket the Apocrypha debate. First, treating the Apocrypha as equal to or greater than canonical Scripture — using 2 Maccabees 12:45 to justify prayers for the dead, or Tobit's folk-medicine to construct doctrines foreign to the Old Testament. Second, dismissing the Apocrypha with such contempt that its genuine historical, devotional, and intertestamental value is lost. Books like 1 Maccabees are invaluable for understanding the 400 silent years between Malachi and Matthew. Sirach contains profound wisdom literature. The right posture is the Protestant one: recognize the 66-book canon as authoritative, read the Apocrypha as edifying secondary literature with discernment, and never build doctrine on it alone. When in doubt, go back to the rule: does Jesus or any apostle ever cite this as Scripture?

📖 Key Scripture

2 Timothy 3:16 — "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Luke 24:44 — "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Revelation 22:18 — "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

🔗 Greek Roots

G613 — ἀποκρύπτω (apokryptō): "to hide away, conceal" — root of the term; used in Colossians 1:26 of the mystery "hidden for ages"

🔗 Related Words