Following the previous article, this time we explore how the biblical canon was shaped by human hands, focusing on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. We’ll examine the impact of their exclusion on the legitimacy of Christian faith and how evangelicals might confront this issue today.
In Christianity, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are two categories of texts that were not universally accepted into the biblical canon. The Apocrypha, while accepted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as part of a secondary canon, are rejected by Protestant churches (based on sola scriptura). The Pseudepigrapha, a broader collection, was entirely excluded by all major Christian traditions. Investigating why these texts were rejected as the "Word of God" reveals the depth of human involvement in the canonization process. Although canon selection is often claimed to be guided by divine revelation, historical analysis suggests that it was heavily influenced by the church's doctrinal and political agendas, raising questions about the foundation of faith.
Apostolicity and Historical Criticism
Apostolicity—whether a text was authored by or closely associated with one of Christ’s apostles—has long been emphasized as a crucial criterion for a text’s inclusion in the canon. However, modern historical criticism has cast doubt on the authenticity of several key writings. For example, many scholars now believe that some of Paul’s letters were written not by Paul himself, but by later disciples who used his name.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the Catholic Church, which includes the Apocrypha, and the Protestant Church, which rejects them, highlights inconsistencies in the supposed divine selection process. If the formation of the canon were truly based on divine revelation, why do different branches of Christianity recognize different texts? This inconsistency suggests that human judgment played a far more significant role than commonly acknowledged, calling into question the idea of an immutable, divinely ordained canon.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
— Proverbs 3:5
Returning to Dialogue
The issue is not whether the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha are “wrong” or “incorrect.” The more critical question is how we deal with these texts and engage in dialogue with God in the modern world. As discussed in the previous article, instead of relying on an absolute ethical standard from the Bible, we should pursue ethical responsibility through continual, conscious dialogue with God.
For postmodern Christians, trusting in the Holy Spirit and exploring God’s intent through personal ethical reflection may offer a more constructive approach than depending solely on scripture. We cannot fully comprehend God’s plan, and the exclusion of certain texts—whether it be the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha—might have served a purpose in the broader history of faith. Their rejection may not have been a mere accident of history but a part of God's greater intention.
"Through a glass, darkly"
— 1 Corinthians 13:12
Curiously, atheists and Christians, though starting from fundamentally different worldviews, may face similar ethical challenges. Atheists often base their ethics on human reason, while Christians seek guidance from divine inspiration. But both groups, ultimately, live by their own ethical judgments. This parallel underscores a shared truth: whether one believes in God or not, ethical responsibility lies with the individual.
The exclusion of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha highlights this shared challenge. The danger of relying on an absolute standard, whether it be religious or secular, remains. Ethical decisions—whether rooted in faith or reason—must be made responsibly. We must confront these choices daily, regardless of where we believe our guidance originates.