A Defense of the Apocrypha
How to Read the Apocrypha Wisely
The Belgic Confession says of the Apocrypha, “The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books.”
Today, I want to give a defense of giving the apocrypha their due and explaining not just why you should read them, but also how you ought to read them, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
I am speaking specifically of Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and the additions to Esther and Daniel.
The Apocrypha is an invaluable primary source for Second Temple Judaism. There are a lot of scholars and pastors who will give you the background to the New Testament. That is all well and good, but there is something exciting about reading a short text that is structured like the book of the Bible and gives you insight into how a Jew waiting for the Messiah saw the world.
I have often felt, reading the New Testament, that we have the stories and words so deeply in our bones and in our cultural consiousness that we need to work extra hard to de-familiarize ourselves with Scripture in order to let it strike us afresh. When we read Judith and see her refusing to eat the unclean food of Holofernes, or when we read about the Maccabee brothers refusing to eat pork, we start to understand the significance of Jesus challenging the Pharisees’ keeping of the law and Paul saying that Christians are free to eat pork.
The Apocrypha fills in the historical gaps between the Testaments. This mostly applies to 1 & 2 Maccabees, and though they are long books (brace yourself for a lot of battles and long descriptions), these historical books give readers an impression of what life was like for Jews between the prophecy of Malachi and the announcement of Gabriel to Joseph and Mary. It was a rough ride. Another good resource, by the way, is F.F. Bruce’s Israel and the Nations, if you want a concise description of the historical events between the Testaments.
The Apocrypha is beneficial to read because it is often true. While the Apocrypha are not inspired, they say a lot of things we should believe and even apply to our own lives.
One apocryphal book that Protestants have admired is Ben Sirach. This book is kind of a commentary on Proverbs, and more than anything else, it reminds you of how important self-control is. There is a time to speak up, and there is a time to shut up. Sirach sticks with me because it is a reminder to me, as a 21st-century American, to remember that the impulse to speak out my heart or let loose my tongue is a bad impuse and should often be suppressed.
The Apocrypha is more sophisticated than it looks. I grew up thinking that the Biblical books were all randomly cobbled together with no structure, no symbolism, and no deeper themes, James Jordan and Peter Leithart quickly disabused me of that notion. You don’t have to agree with every one of their readings to recognize that the Biblical authors were in fact literary artists of high caliber.
The same is true of the Apocrypha. If you read them, try to get a plot summary first and then look for phrases that seem to highlight the themes of the book. Remember that the author has particular points he is trying to make, much as you would have a point you were trying to make it you were preparing a presentation or lecture. For instance, why does the Wisdom of Solomon try to minimize the sin of Israel in his retelling of Israel’s history? Why does Ben Sirach have an account of creation in the middle of the book? Be a detective. Try to find repeated themes. By all means, read quickly, especially if it’s boring, but read these books slowly and ask what the authors would have wanted their readers to think.
Be slow to make a judgment. With goodreads and rotten tomatoes, we too often think that we have understood an ancient text when in fact we have given it a superficial reading. (I must admit to having done this many times.)
The Apocryphal writers are your people. The Apocrypha, I think gets things wrong. For instance, I think 2 Maccabees justifies suicide, which is a point that just doesn’t square with biblical or natural law. But compared to other writings, such as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, they are on the same level of orthodoxy as the Patristic, Medieval, Reformed, Puritan, and Evangelical Church Fathers. Those guys get things wrong all the time, much as your pastor gets things wrong all the time. That does not mean you do not have things to learn from him, or that he’s not a better Christian than you are.
The book of 2 Maccabees, which is the one that Protestants have the most issues with, is in fact a moving portrayal of Jewish martyrs. You should read about them, because you are going to meet them in heaven. They will have their scars; you will have yours. They are Jesus’s people, and they paved the way for his coming. Read 2 Maccabees. Then read Hebrews 11 again. Many of these writings were written by fellow believers who longed for Christ. Even when mistaken, these short books are writings that are deeply and intimately concerned with the hope and fate of the people of God waiting for the Messiah.
And of course, the reason I like to blog about stuff like the Dead Sea Scrolls is because they’re writings that should impact our exegesis and theology. These writings are orthodox primary sources. Let’s start talking about the theology of the Apocrypha. We could learn a lot.