In examining church history, including the testimony of early historians and Church Fathers, I have compiled the table below to demonstrate that many did not regard the Apocryphal books as Scripture.
Those who did recognize the Apocrypha acknowledged their value primarily for liturgical use and edification, not for establishing doctrine. They consistently distinguished these writings from the authoritative canon. This historical evidence ultimately supports the Protestant affirmation of the 66-book biblical canon.
Church History Timeline: Apocrypha as Edifying but Not Canonical
Name |
Date |
View on Apocrypha |
Philo of Alexandria |
1st c. |
Used only Hebrew Scriptures; no apocryphal quotes. |
Josephus |
c. 90 |
Affirmed 22-book canon; rejected later writings as uninspired. |
Melito of Sardis |
c. 170 |
Compiled 22-book canon; excluded Apocrypha. |
Origen |
c. 250 |
Affirmed 22-book canon; quoted Apocrypha for edification. |
Cyril of Jerusalem |
c. 350 |
Listed 22 books; warned against reading Apocrypha. |
Hilary of Poitiers |
c. 360 |
Distinguished canonical and ecclesiastical books. |
Gregory Nazianzus |
c. 380 |
Listed Hebrew canon; excluded Apocrypha. |
Epiphanius of Salamis |
c. 375 |
Affirmed 22-book canon; symbolic with Hebrew alphabet. |
Athanasius |
367 |
Listed 22 canonical OT books; Apocrypha for edification. |
Jerome |
c. 400 |
Rejected Apocrypha as canon; included it for liturgical use. |
Rufinus |
c. 400 |
Said Apocrypha is for edification, not doctrine. |
Babylonian Talmud |
5th c. |
Affirmed 24-book canon; same content as 22. |
John of Damascus |
c. 730 |
Used Apocrypha devotionally, not as canon. |
Hugh of St. Victor |
12th c. |
Separated canonical from ecclesiastical books. |
Nicholas of Lyra |
14th c. |
Apocrypha not of equal authority with Scripture. |
John Wycliffe |
14th c. |
Upheld Hebrew canon in his translation. |
Benedict of Peterborough |
12th c. |
Distinguished public reading books from canon. |
Cardinal Ximenes |
15th c. |
Placed Apocrypha in appendix of Polyglot; not canonical. |
Erasmus of Rotterdam |
16th c. |
Saw value in Apocrypha, but not as Scripture. |
Sixtus of Siena |
16th c. |
Coined ‘deuterocanonical’ to mark them as secondary. |
Martin Luther |
16th c. |
Translated Apocrypha; separated it from Scripture. |
John Calvin |
16th c. |
Rejected Apocrypha as inspired, though useful. |
William Whitaker |
16th c. |
Denied canonicity, allowed moral use. |
Church of England (39 Articles) |
1563 |
Read for manners, not for doctrine. |
Westminster Confession |
1646 |
Apocrypha not part of canon; may be read for value. |
The table below presents a survey of prominent councils throughout church history. Notably, the majority of these were not ecumenical councils—that is, they were not universally binding according to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox standards—and thus carried no definitive authority over the entire Church.
This historical reality underscores the fact that the canon of Scripture was not established by any single council, but rather recognized by the Christian community, further affirming the Protestant position that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.
As the table indicates, the first Roman Catholic ecumenical council to formally define the canon, including the Apocrypha, was the Council of Florence (1442), which occurred quite late in church history. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, no definitive ecumenical council regarding the canon can be identified, and some scholars argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has never closed its Old Testament canon in a definitive way.
Church and Jewish Councils on the Biblical Canon
Council / Source |
Date |
Canon Decision |
Ecumenical (Catholic) |
Ecumenical (Orthodox) |
Authoritative (Protestant) |
Council of Rome |
382 |
Included Apocrypha |
No |
No |
No |
Council of Laodicea |
c. 363 |
Excluded Apocrypha |
No |
Respected in East |
No |
Council of Constantinople I |
381 |
No canon defined |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Council of Hippo |
393 |
Included Apocrypha |
No |
No |
No |
Council of Carthage |
397 |
Included Apocrypha |
No |
No |
No |
Council of Carthage |
419 |
Reaffirmed 397 canon |
No |
No |
No |
Council in Trullo (Quinisext) |
692 |
Affirmed Laodicea |
No |
Sometimes considered |
No |
Second Nicaea (Nicaea II) |
787 |
No canon defined |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Fourth Lateran Council |
1215 |
No specific canon, reaffirmed Catholic teaching |
Yes |
No |
No |
Council of Florence |
1442 |
Listed full Catholic canon incl. Apocrypha |
Yes |
No |
No |
Council of Trent |
1546 |
Formally canonized Apocrypha |
Yes |
No |
No |
Council of La Rochelle |
1571 |
Excluded Apocrypha |
No |
No |
Yes (Reformed) |
Westminster Assembly |
1646 |
Excluded Apocrypha |
No |
No |
Yes (Reformed) |
Synod of Jerusalem |
1672 |
Affirmed expanded Orthodox OT canon |
No |
Yes |
No |
Council of Jamnia (Yavne) |
c. 90–100 AD |
Affirmed 24-book Hebrew Bible (same content as 22) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 14b) |
c. 500 AD |
Confirms 24-book Hebrew canon |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Masoretic Tradition |
7th–10th c. |
Standardized the 24-book Hebrew canon textually |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
I trust that this article has served to help the body of Christ gain a clearer understanding of the Protestant position. To my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, please know that while I am presenting and defending this perspective, it does not diminish the deep love and respect I have for you in Christ. As John Calvin wisely said:
“There are defects and errors in the Church, yet we do not therefore reject her. We acknowledge that those churches which retain the true worship of God and in which Christ is faithfully preached, though there are some infirmities, are to be considered part of the true Church.”
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 12)
May we all continue to seek truth, love one another, and be united in our shared confession that Jesus Christ is Lord.
