Are the Apocrypha canonized

Answer 1

Roman Catholic AnswerAs with many other words, you have to be careful here, as the words mean different things depending on whether you are a Catholic or not. Protestants churches use the word "apocrypha" to mean the Deutero-canon. Catholics use the word apocrypha to refer to those books that some include in their description of Scripture that are NOT in the canon. As the question is stated above, no, none of the apocrypha is in canon, the words are mutually exclusive. However, the apocrypha to which protestants refer is part of the canon of Scirpture.

from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, English translation 1994

IV. The Canon of Scripture

120. It was by the apostolic Tradition that the church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. (Cf. Dei Verbum 8§ 3) This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New. (Cf. Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum{1965})

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Ester, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hose4a, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according toMatthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, andJude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

It was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture.

The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.

According to major Protestant scholars and historians, in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deutercanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

There's a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codes Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit.

According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia (first century Jewish council) was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything. The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century.

And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:

When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)

Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture

from The One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong; Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007