If you have read much of our material, you may have realized that we don’t quote from the Apocrypha. Why is that? Wasn’t it a part of the original 1611 King James Version (the translation we quote from the most)? Didn’t the Jews accept it? Let’s understand the truth about the Apocrypha, and why we don’t use it in our articles!
What’s in a Name?
First of all, let’s take a look at what the word Apocrypha means. The Greek word denotes “secret in origin,” “hidden,” even “spurious.” Not a good name for a set of works some regard as inspired! The apocryphal works, of which seven today are commonly recognized, are disregarded by many authorities as being just what their name states—of dubious origin. So why were these works included in many Bibles, even in the original 1611 version of the kjv?
The men who put together the original 1611 kjv were aware of the dubious standing of the Apocrypha, and thus tucked its chapters right between the Old and New Testaments, separating it along with the maps and genealogies. They were considered good for historical reference, but not to be included as a part of the inspired Scriptures.
The Roman Catholic Church, however, had been professing that, based upon their perceived “authority” over the Scriptures, the Apocrypha should be incorporated as a part of the biblical canon. Even still, the Apocrypha was regarded as such a hornet’s nest that it was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the pope used his authority to officially declare the Apocrypha on this same standing as the Old and New Testaments. But does the Catholic Church really have the authority to make such a claim? To whose custody were the Scriptures given, and which Scriptures were they that were to be preserved?
True Custodians of the Bible
Romans 3:1-2 clearly state that to the Jews “were committed the oracles of God.” Not the Catholic Church! What were the oracles that were given for the Jews to preserve? To that point, it was the Old Testament! Christ affirmed the authority of the Jews in Matthew 23:1-3: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do ye not after their works: for they say, and do not.”
Christ recognized the scribes and Pharisees as sitting in the same seat as Moses, still preserving the “oracles of God”! (see also Acts 7:38). While their actions spoke against them, they were still in the seat of Moses, and were responsible for teaching and preserving the true Scripture. These Jews paid extreme care to detail in copying out the Bible, ensuring that not a single letter would be missed in preserving the contents of what we today refer to as the Old Testament.
The Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, to whom were given authority from God Himself to preserve the Bible, did not recognize the apocryphal writings. Yet Catholics would have you believe that, by their authority, the Apocrypha should be attached into this Old Testament, even adding certain apocryphal chapters to some of the Old Testament books!
Who were the authors of these apocryphal works, anyway?
The fraudulent works that some would so readily add to the Bible come primarily from a Jewish sect known as the Essenes. Their ascetic community was influenced by many pagan practices, and in a bid to justify their beliefs, they composed flagrantly fraudulent works, such as “The Book of Enoch,” works that go contrary to the teachings of the Bible. The Essenes were not in the position of the Jewish authority emanating from Jerusalem, tasked with preserving the oracles of God (see Deuteronomy 17:8-10; Psalm 78:67-68; 1 Kings 11:13—Jerusalem was God’s chosen headquarters for matters to be decided, such as controversies over which books to be included in the Bible).
What About the Septuagint?
Some would argue that the apocryphal books should be recognized, stating that they were a part of the Greek Septuagint writings. They might claim that it was from these Septuagint scriptures that the apostles quoted the Old Testament, thus giving authority to the Septuagint, and, by way of deduction, authority to the apocryphal works within its pages. Is this really the case?
In fact, much of the Septuagint was a poorly translated document that had absolutely no authority. Even Jewish historian Josephus mentions that many of the Old Testament books translated into the Septuagint were “transcribed more carelessly than they ought to have been” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book xii, Chapter ii). For example, around 2,700 words were missing from the translated book of Jeremiah! Added to that—the Apocrypha was not even a part of the original Septuagint writings! Much of the Apocrypha was not even completed by the time the Septuagint was written out. Dr. Herman L. Hoeh wrote in his 1959 Good News article, “Do We Have the Complete Bible?”:
“The Catholic Bishop Cyril, of Jerusalem, born about 315 a.d., mentioned that as late as his date it was recognized that the Septuagint did not have the Apocrypha in it! He wrote: ‘Read the divine Scriptures—namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated …’—the Septuagint Version. Notice that there were no 22 plus seven [the seven works of the Apocrypha] added books! There were only the 22 scrolls which were translated (the 39 books of the Old Testament today, remember, were then often unofficially written on 22 scrolls).”
Dr. Hoeh goes on to state that the addition of the apocryphal works to both the Old and New Testaments did not begin until around 80 a.d. So even if Christ and the apostles had used the Septuagint version to quote the Old Testament from, it still would give no credence to the Apocrypha. Incidentally, only about one out of three New Testament quotations of the Old Testament matches the Septuagint version. All the evidence points to Christ and the apostles referencing a different translation.
Further proof? From historian Josephus: “For we (the Jews) have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing and contradicting one another, but only 22 books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine” (Against Apion, Book i, Section viii). Only these 22 (divided into 39 books today) were inspired.
Final Points
So the Apocrypha is a collection of works of dubious origin. They were added to the Bible at the push of the Catholic Church, which had no authority from God to do so. While some works have a degree of historicity, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, and can be useful for the study of the period between writing of the Old and New Testaments, they are in no way inspired books, and care should be taken when reading them.
Those God did give authority to preserve the Old Testament—the scribes and Pharisees—rejected including such works in the Bible, instead carefully preserving the 22 scrolls (or 39 books) that were given them by the inspiration of God. Christ stated in Luke 24:44-45, “[A]ll things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures ….” What were the inspired Scriptures of that time? The law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms—under which categories fall all of the books of the Old Testament! Not any of the apocryphal works! Christ Himself did not recognize, nor quote the Apocrypha. By what authority, then, can we?
What about the New Testament? Can apocryphal works be added to that? Dr. Hoeh wrote: “Most people are not aware that if the New Testament is placed side by side with the Old, the Bible is complete in seven divisions: law, prophets, psalms; gospels, acts, epistles, revelation. Here is an amazing seven-fold division of the books of the Bible. Seven is God’s number for completion. With these seven divisions of the Bible, God’s Book is complete” (ibid). And adding the 27 books of the New Testament to the 22 original scrolls of the Old, we have a Bible of 49 books. 49, of course, is seven times seven—or, you could say, complete completion. A perfectly complete Bible, without any added Apocryphal works.
The true Church was warned about fraudulent works such as the Apocrypha. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, the Apostle Paul warned, “[B]e not soon shaken in mind … or by letter as [if it was] from us … let no man deceive you by any means ….” Beware of those who would plagiarize material under the name of God’s chosen writers!
The Bible is a complete work. And the final book, Revelation, closes the Bible with a dire warning to all those who would seek to add spurious words to the Scriptures. “[I]f any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18). Therefore, we do not recognize the Apocrypha.