INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE
In my opinion, the case for Christianity would be lost by a Protestant[1] who believes that the Apocrypha[2] were never accepted as authentic Scripture by the early Church, the Apostles, or Jesus. After the Protestant has presented all the evidence for the authenticity, historicity, and truth of Christian claims for the actual Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as proclaimed in the Gospels, etc., a skeptic would be able to establish the Protestant’s standard for acceptance and belief. Each piece of evidence in favor of the acceptance of the Apocrypha by the Apostles and their disciples would be presented, so as to be rejected as insufficient by such a Protestant. The judge would hear the Protestant’s own voice tell her that the evidence for the Apocrypha is not enough, and explain all the reasons why it cannot be considered as sufficient proof of what the Apostles actually taught.
The case for Christianity would thus shift. It would no longer be a simple matter of Christians presenting evidence that meets or exceeds the traditional standards for proving historical or legal facts. Instead, it would require convincing the judge that the evidence proves that the Gospels and Epistles are authentic testimony and teaching from Apostles—even though the Protestant “admits” that much the same evidence does not prove that the Apocrypha were authentic Apostolic teaching.
Rather than continue to try to explain how this could work, allow me to show you one way this becomes a problem, by turning to two tiny pieces of evidence: Susanna and Baruch.[3]
[1] Generally speaking, by “Protestant” I just mean they who insist upon the Protestant canon (39 Old Testament Books). “Protestants” and “Jews” are just labels for extremely diverse groups (e.g., there are both Protestants and Jews who accept all the Apocrypha), and being clear about that in every single sentence is not feasible. I trust you can use your considerable intellect to decipher ancillary terminology from its context and figure out who I am talking about. (In addition, I over-capitalize religious terminology only to avoid giving offense.) While most of the discussion herein relates to those who deny that the early Church accepted the Apocrypha, the evidence should still be of interest to those who acknowledge that as a fact but reject the Apocrypha on theological grounds or limit their use in some way as secondary to other Scripture, etc.
The word “canon” means something like a measuring stick (a ruler, therefore a rule). In Biblical terms, it ends up being the official table of contents, applied as the “rule” that defines what is or is not included in the Bible as Scripture. A “canon list” is a list of the correct Books as claimed by early Father(s)—their lists often differed, so it is “so and so’s canon list.”
[2] I generally use the capitalized word “Apocrypha” to refer only to the Books of Susanna, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. These are some of the additional Books of the Catholic “Deuterocanon,” which are part of the Catholic canon. All other books (putting aside other additions to Daniel and Esther, as well as the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch chapter 6), which I simply do not have space to cover in detail) would be considered “apocryphal” to both Catholics and Protestants—and outside of my scope. It is confusing to use the term this way, and impossible to use it consistently, but hopefully, the precise meanings will be obvious in context and will not distract from the point I am trying to make (which is mostly addressed to Protestants, hence my use of Protestant lingo).
[3] Just to get some things out of the way:
I cite Wikipedia and other free secondary sources on simple matters outside of my core research. I do so not because any of them are authoritative but to enable the reader to double check my work and (via Wikipedia’s own notes) follow the matter back to primary sources. Citing obscure works looks like proof but, far too often, is an easy way to deceive someone.
Speaking of which, about 20% of modern authorial citations in this field are wrong, by my count from my own research. I believe I comfortably beat that metric herein, and I worked hard to assure myself that I was not taking any quotes out of context or misrepresenting what the author was actually saying. Undoubtedly, some mistakes are still included, but I sincerely doubt the mistakes can be numerous enough to matter to any fair analysis.
As for the style of my citations, while I am not proud of that part of my work, I hope that the effort I put into verifying the citations more than makes up for my lack of a consistent style. I generally do not cite pages for things like Bible commentaries, as the section references are more useful for those of us who cannot easily access a particular printing just to look something up.
All website links and citations were accurate when I created them in either 2024 or 2025. Websites were usually selected by Google and used because their content was representative on the point I am quoting them for, and not because their thoughts are unique. If they disappear or change their tune, then just Google the point they made, and you will find a thousand other sites saying the same sorts of things. I conducted no investigation into webpages, I merely cite to them for what I quote from them; beyond that their operators may all be devil-worshipping terrorists for all I know. For that matter, so too might be the authors of books I cite herein.
“Citation” and “reference” can mean different things to different authors, databases, and websites, and I generally track their meaning when I am talking about their work. Context should make it clear whether what is being discussed is an allusion or a full citation by name, etc. But notably, and very unfortunately, Biblia Patristica/ www.biblindex.org/en uses “citation” to include everything, even vague allusions—which should never be confused with a real citation or quotation. Most of my use of the Biblindex data is to draw comparisons, where the important thing is that the data is consistent; so, even if the terminology is confusing, it generally does not matter.
Also, I did try to say things like “possible reference” or “John’s Gospel may have referred to X” in order to make the point that these things are for you to decide, but it is often awkward to keep doing so. I trust that you, the reader, can keep such things straight and know that you need not agree with me on them.
Lastly, I did not consult a single scholar, Minister, Priest, or other knowledgeable source. I consider this a work of “outsider scholarship,” and preferred to do my research without private engagement with any side in any of the debates I discuss herein.
