Apocrypha in English Bible Versions

A few notes about the Apocrypha:

“Article VI of the Church of England (1562) authorizes the reading of these books (I (III) Esdras-II Maccabees) for example of life and instruction of manners, but not to establish any doctrine. However, much Protestant (especially Calvinist) opinion disapproved of the Apocrypha, which are frequently absent from extant copies of Geneva Bibles, particularly those printed in Holland. In 1615 Archbishop Abbott forbade the issue of Bibles without the Apocrypha, but copies of the Authorized Version surviving from editions of the 1630’s often lack them [i.e., the Apocryphal books], and were perhaps so purchasable. The first edition of an English Bible deliberately issued without them was probably the Geneva Bible of A. Hart, Edinburgh, 1640, which retains the Prayer of Manasses only and gives reasons for omitting the rest.”

The Cambridge History of the Bible: the West from the Reformation to the Present Day, S. L. Greenslade, editor, page 169

The 1650 Stationers printing of the King James Bible does not have the Apocrypha.

A Survey of the Apocrypha and Reformation-era Bibles

English language

I examined the Coverdale (1535) through Bishops (1568) Bibles regarding the Apocrypha. The scans I have access to demonstrate the following.

The Coverdale Bible of 1535 has the Apocrypha distinguished from the Old and New Testaments, with the exception that the prophecy of Baruch is placed between Lamentations and Ezekiel.

Coverdale makes this statement regarding the Apocrypha: “APOCRIPHA: The bokes and treatises which amonge the fathers of olde are not reckened to be of like authoritie with the other bokes of the byble, neither are they founde in the Canon of hebrue.” Afterward these books are named—3rd Esdras, 4th Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Certain chapters of Esther, Book of Wisdom, Eccesiasticus, Susanna, Bell, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees. Then this note: “Unto these also belongeth Baruc, whom we have set amonge the prophetes next unto Jeremy, because he was his scrybe, and in his tyme.” Then this is followed by a longer translator to the reader message, which explains further about the Apocrypha.

The Matthew, Taverner, and Great Bibles move Baruch to the Apocrypha – so that they have all 14 apocryphal books in a distinct section. The Matthew Bible mentions that these books are in the common Latin translation, but not “in the Hebrue nor in the Chalde.” The Taverner Bible gives the same explanation. The 1540 Great Bible calls this section Hagiographa rather than Apocrypha. It follows with a longer explanation of how these books are not received by all, as the rest of the Old Testament, and that they are not in the Hebrew or Chaldee, and so on.

The Geneva Bible of 1560 has the Apocrypha in a distinct section with a note: “APOCRYPHA. The Argument. The bokes that follow in order after the Prophetes unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes which were not received by a commune consent to be red and expounded publikly in the Church, nether yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save in asmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as bokes proceeding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of historie, & for the instruction of godlie maners: which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so brought it to passe, for the destruction of their enemies and for the tryal of his children.”

For whatever reason, the Geneva Bible moved The Prayer of Manasseh out of the apocryphal section and placed it between II Chronicles and Ezra. It does, however, contain this note: “This prayer is not in the Ebrewe, but is translated out of the Greke.”

The 1568 Bishops Bible moves The Prayer of Manasseh back into the Apocrypha, so that all 14 apocryphal books now appear there as they were in the Matthew, Taverner, and Great Bibles.

Other languages

Luther 1535 German Bible

Title to Apocrypha section: “APOCRYPHA, Das sind Bücher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, und doch nützlich und gut zu lesen sind” (“These are Books which are not to be esteemed as the Holy Scriptures, yet are useful and good to read.”)

Olivetan 1535 French Bible

Fourteen apocryphal books were printed in this Bible (see Registre des livres Apocryphes). A note in “aux fideles lecteurs” (To faithful readers) specified that “And they also are not received or held as legitimate by the Hebrews or by the Church as a whole” (“Et que aussi ne sont point receuz ny tenus comme legitimes tant des Ebrieux que de toute leglise”).

Cipriano de Valera Spanish Bible of 1602

Los Libros Apocryphos. El que quisiere saber porque se llamen Apocryphos, y que autoridad tengan en la Iglesia de Dios elea la exhortacion al Christiano Lector, que esta al principio desta Biblia.

The Apocryphal Books. Whoever wants to know why they are called Apocrypha, and what authority they have in the Church of God, read the exhortation to the Christian Reader, which is at the beginning of this Bible.

Al Christiano Lector a leer la sagrada Escriptura. En la qual se muestra quales sean los libros Canonicos, o sagrada Escriptura, y quales sean los libros Apocryphos.

To the Christian Reader to read the sacred Scripture. In which it is shown which are the Canonical books, or Sacred Scripture, and which are the Apocryphal books.

Y assi el mismo S. Ieronymo lib. 1 contra Pelagian, reprehende a un cierro herege porquanto que el pretendiendo provar cierta cosa tocante al reyno de los cielos, avia alegado testimonios tomados de los libros Apocryphos.

And so the same St. Jerome, Book I against Pelagius, reprimands a certain heretic because he, claiming to prove a certain thing concerning the kingdom of heaven, had alleged testimonies taken from the Apocryphal books.

Statenvertaling 1537 Dutch Bible

De Boecken genaemt Apocryphe (The Books named Apocrypha) has 15 books, 3 books of Maccabees rather than two.

The Waerschouwinge Aen de Lesers Vande Apocryphe Boecken (Survey for the Readers of the Apocryphal Books) calls these books hidden, stating they are not canonical and do not have the characteristics of the canonical books.

DE Schriften die van oudts by een gevoeght zijn gheweest in het Boeck ghenaemt de BIBEL, ofte, de SCHRIFTVRE, zijn tweederley: sommige zijn van Godt selve in-gegeven, 2.Tim. 3. vers 16. ende geschreven van de Heylige mannen Godts, namelijck, Propheten ende Apostelen, Ephes. 2. vers. 20. gedreven zijnde door den Gheest Godts, 2.Petr. 1. vers 21. die den Geest der waerheydt is, Ioan. 15. vers 26. ende capit. 16. vers 13. ende die derhalven Goddelicke Schriften zijn, ende van ongetwijfelde ende onfeylbare waerheydt. Dese worden gemeynlick ghenaemt, met een Griecx woort, CANONYKE BOECKEN, om datse vervatten eene leere die de Canon, dat is, de Regel is van al het gene wy gelooven ende doen moeten ter saligheydt. Galat. 6.16. Philip. 3. vers 16. ofte, om dat’se staen in den Canon, dat is, in het Register der Goddelicke Boecken, het welck soo de Ioodsche, als de eerste Christelicke Kercke, altijt ghehadt heeft. Athanas. in Synopsi. Sommige zijn door eygen ingeven geschreven van menschen die in de leere dwalen konden: ende die des halven geenen reghel en konnen zijn van ons’ gheloove ende wandel. Ende dese worden genaemt APOCRYPHE BOECKEN, dat is, Verborgene: ofte om dat’se niet opentlick in de Ghemeynte en behooren ghelesen, maer veel eer verborghen te worden: ofte, om datse niet en zijn gheweest in de casse, daer in de Goddelicke Boecken van de Ioden bewaert ende verborgen wierden. Aengaende de Boecken des Nieuwen Testaments, die in den Bibel staen, hoewel eertijdts sommighe bysondere Leeraers, doch sonder reden, ghetwijfelt hebben aen den Sendt-brief tot den Hebreen, den Sendt-brief Jacobi, den tweeden Sendt-brief Petri, den tweeden ende den derden Sendt-brief Joannis, den Sendt-brief Jude, ende de Openbaringhe Joannis, of dese oock Canonijke Boecken waren, soo is het nochtans dat de oude Christelicke kercken in ’t ghemeyn daer aen noyt en hebben getwijfelt, ende en wort daer aen oock nu niet getwijfelt, maer worden alle voor Godlicke ende Canonijke Boecken van de geheele Christenheyt erkent ende ghehouden. Maer by de schriften des Ouden Testaments worden eenige boecken gestelt, die niet Canonijck en zijn, maer Apocryph: als daer zijn het derde ende vierde boeck Esdre, de historie van Tobias, ende Iudith, het boeck der Wijsheyt, Ecclesiasticus Iesu Syrach, seven capittelen ghevoeght by het boeck van Esther, het boeck van Baruch, ende de brief van Ieremias, eenige Aenhanghselen van het boeck Daniels, namelick de Historie van Susanna, van Bel ende den Draeck, het gebedt van Azarias, ende de lof-sanck der mede-gesellen Daniels in den vyerigen oven, het gebedt van Manasse, ende de dry boecken der Machabeen. Dat dese schriften gheen Canonijke, maer Apocryphe Boecken zijn, blijckt klaerlick, om dat in de selve niet gespeurt noch gevonden en worden de ken-teeckenen, waer door de Canonijke Boecken van andere onderkent ende onderscheyden worden. De ken-teeckenen van een Canonijck schrift des Ouden Testaments zijn dese. Eerstelick dat het gheschreven zy van een Propheet: waerom de Canonijke Boecken des Ouden Testaments ghenaemt worden de Prophetische Schriften. Romeyn. capit. 16. vers 26. ende het Prophetisch woordt. 2.Petr. capit. 1. vers 19. Ende dat het volgens dien niet geschreven en zy nae de tyden van Malachias, die de laetste Propheet is geweest. Siet Iosephum tegen App. lib. 1. ende Eusebium Histor. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 10. II. Dat het geschreven zy in de Hebreeusche tale: want de Schriften des Ouden Testaments zijn geschreven voor de Israëlitische Kercke, die de Hebreeusche tale alleen gebruyckte. Siet Hieronym. praefat. in Paral. & in Esd. III. Dat het van de Ioodsche ofte Israëlitische Kercke voor een Canonijck boeck erkent ende gehouden zy geweest. want den Ioden zijn de woorden Godts toe-vertrouwt. Psal. 147.19. Rom. 3.2. ende zijn belast deselve getrouwelick te bewaren. Deuter. 31.30. ’t welck sy oock altijdt seer sorghfuldelick ghedaen hebben: soo dat de Heere Christus, hoewel hy haer over de quade uytlegginge der Heylige Schrifture dickwils bestraft heeft, nochtans haer noyt en heeft beschuldight, dat sy de Heylige Schrifture vervalscht ofte vermenght souden hebben: maer de menschen wijst tot die Schrifture, die’se doe hadden. Luc. 16.29. Ioan. 5.39. IV. Dat in het selve niet gevonden en worde dan dat heyligh ende waerachtigh zy, ende niet dat strijdigh zy tegen de waerheyt, ofte tegen de Goddelicke Leere in de Canonijke boecken begrepen. Dat nu dese ken-teeckenen in de voorschrevene Apocryphe schriften niet gevonden en worden, blijckt in deselve claerlick. I. Want geene van de selve en zijn geschreven van een Propheet, alsoo’se alle gheschreven zijn nae de tyden van Malachias: ende de autheurs van deselve boecken bekennen selve dat in haren tijdt geen Propheten en zijn geweest, ghelijck te sien is 1.Machab. 4.46. ende 9.27. Siet oock 2.Machab. 2.21. ende de voor-reden van Syrach. Den autheur van het boeck der Wijsheyt seght wel capit. 9. vers. 7, 8. dat hy de Coningh Salomon is, dien Godt geboden heeft den Tempel te bouwen, maer dat wort onwaerachtigh bevonden, alsoo dit boeck eerstmael in ’t Griecksch is geschreven, gelijck de stijl uytwijst, ende men claerlick can sien cap. 4. vers. 2. dat den autheur merckelick siet op de strijden ende camp-vechtingen der Griecken, die over de twee hondert jaren nae Salomons tyden eerst zijn in-ghestelt geweest. De oude Leeraers meynen dat dit boeck geschreven zy van Philo den Iode, die nae Christi geboorte gheleeft heeft, ende in hem niet en heeft gelooft. Siet Hieronym. in prologo galeato, in libr. Sap. ende praefat. in Proverb. Salomonis. II. Dese boecken en zijn oock niet in ’t Hebreeusch, maer zijn in ’t Griecx geschreven: ende het vierde boeck Esdre en wort niet dan in ’t Latijn ghevonden. III. Sy en zijn oock noyt gestelt geweest in het Register der Godtlicke boecken, dat de Israëlitische Kercke gehadt heeft: gelijck te sien is by den History-schrijver der Ioden Iosephum tegen Appionem, lib. 1. die aldaer twee-en-twintigh Canonijke boecken verhaelt, die de Ioodsche kercke voor sodanige gehouden heeft, onder welcke geene van dese boecken en zijn. Siet oock Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sy en zijn oock noyt in de Synagogen der Ioden voor-ghelesen, noch van de Priesters ofte Schriftgeleerde den volcke verclaert. Het blijckt oock dat de Heere Christus, ende sijne Heylighe Apostelen, dese boecken niet en hebben voor Canonijke erkent, alsoo sy nergens uyt eenige der selve yet voort en brengen, gelijck’se doen uyt de andere Canonijke boecken, den welcken sy doorgaens van hare Goddelickheyt getuygenisse geven, ’t welck van dese Apocryphe noyt en geschiet. Ende alsoo de eerste Christelicke kercke de Canonijke boecken des Ouden Testaments ontfanghen heeft vande Israëlitische kercke, so siet men oock dat in de Registers der Canonijke boecken van de eerste Christelicke kercke, dese boecken oock niet gevonden en worden. Eusebius getuyght, Histor. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 26. dat een oudt ende treflick Leeraer, Melito genaemt, Bischop te Sardis, daerom gereyst is in Orienten, om te vernemen nae het getal ende orden van de Canonijke boecken, ende dat onder deselve dese boecken niet en waren, gelijck uyt het Register aldaer te sien is. Desgelijcks oock het Concilium van Laodicea, gehouden in het jaer onses Heeren dry hondert ende achtien, verhalende Can. 59. het Register der boecken die doe vande Christelicke kercken voor Canonijke gehouden wierden, en stelt geene van dese boecken in het selve: gelijck oock niet en doen alle de oudste kerckelicke Schrijvers, als sy mede het Register der Canonijke boecken verhalen, als daer zijn onder andere Origenes, by Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 24. Cyprianus in Symb. Athanasius in Synopsi. Hilarius in prol. Psal. Hieronymus in prol. galeato, in praefat. in lib. Estherae, lib. Salom. Daniel. et Machab. Nazianzenus in Carm. Epiphanius haeres. 8. et in l. de pond. et mens. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catech. 4. Ruffinus in expos. Symb. IV. Waer by noch komt, dat in meest alle dese boecken gevonden worden verscheydene onware, ongerijmde, fabeleuse, ende tegen-strijdende saken, die met de waerheyt, noch met de Canonijke boecken niet over een en comen. Uyt seer vele connen dese weynige tot claer bewijs daer van zijn. Het geheele vierde boeck Esdre en is meest anders niet als een geduerigh verhael van versierde dingen, die noyt en zijn geschiet: gelijck insonderheyt is ’t gene den autheur verhaelt, capit. 6.49. etc. van die twee groote beesten Enoch ofte Behemoth, ende Leviathan; ’t welck claerlick smaeckt na Ioodsche fabelen. Ende wie soude connen gelooven waerachtigh te zijn ’t gene verhaelt wort capit. 14. vers. 21, etc. dat de Wet Godts geheel verloren was geweest, ende dat deselve van Esdra in den tijdt van veertigh dagen wederom is gedicteert geweest? Dat geseght wort cap. 4 vers. 41. dat de zielen der verstorvene in eenighe vertrecken ofte cellen onder de aerde bewaert worden, dat strijdt oock claerlick tegen de Canonijke schriften, Eccles. 12.7. 2.Reg. 2.11. Matth. 5.3. ende 12.

English Statements

Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563). Sixth Article: “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

Westminster Confession (1647). Chapter 1 § 3: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

Hebrew Bible

The 14 Apocryphal books were not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and were never part of the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Romans 3:2 ...unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God.

See also What about the Apocrypha? Four Reasons the Apocrypha is Not Canonical

Apocrypha again

There seems to be many misconceptions about the Bible and the Apocrypha. Some KJV-Detractors either think or pretend to think that the King James translation was the first English Bible to include it, and that supporters of the King James translation do not know that the Apocrypha was in the 1611 King James Version.
 
Yes, the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as well as some later printings) included the Apocrypha, 14 books between the Old and New Testaments – I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther (usually called Additions to Esther), The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (the Epistle of Jeremiah appears as Chapter Six of Baruch), The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh King of Judah, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees.

So did the 1382 Wycliffe Bible
So did the 1535 Coverdale Bible
So did the 1537 Matthew Bible
So did the 1539 Taverner Bible
So did the 1541 Great Bible
So did the 1560 Geneva Bible
So did the 1568 Bishops Bible
So did the English Revised Version (the 1901 ASV did not)
 
Based on my limited research, William Tyndale did not finish the translation of the Old Testament before his death. Thus, we do not know whether or not he would have included the Apocrypha. This Apocrypha was also found in other language Bibles, such as Luther’s translation, the Zürich Bible, and the Spanish Reina-Valera. The Codex Vaticanus contained most of the Apocrypha and the surviving Codex Sinaiticus contains some of the Apocrypha. 
 
According to F. F. Bruce, Coverdale’s Bible of 1535 separated the apocryphal books from the Old Testament and placed them after Malachi (with the exception of Baruch which came after Jeremiah until it was moved after Tobit in the 1537 edition of Coverdale). (The Books and the Parchments: How We God Our English Bible, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1950, p. 163)
 
As best I can tell, both the Puritans and High-Church Anglicans subscribed to “Article VI on the Holy Scriptures” from the Book of Articles which was “agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy in the convocation holden at London in the year 1562...” Referencing the Apocrypha, Article VI stated, “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine...”
 
The Second Cambridge Company of King James translators, under the leadership of John Duport, were tasked with translating the Apocrypha. Alexander McClure lists the following reasons for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon. Some people take this to mean the reasons of the Second Cambridge Company, but it might be an explanation by McClure (it is not clear to me which he meant).
 
“The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. 3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures but themselves; as when in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the bible, such a prayers for the dead, and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable as ancient documents, illustrative of manners, language, opinions and history of the East.” (The Translators Revived: a Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible, by Alexander Wilson McClure, pp. 185-186)

Newer Bible translations such as the Revised Standard Version also included the Apocrypha. The New Testament translation was first published in 1946, the Old Testament in 1952, and then the Apocrypha in 1957.

King James and the Apocrypha

Over ten years ago I authored a piece on this blog called Baptists and the Apocrypha. In it I tried to offer a consistent cautious conventional approach for Baptists to what are known as the apocryphal books, sometimes set between the Old and New Testaments. Today I want to consider “King James and the Apocrypha”. At times some Baptists and others attack the King James Bible on the basis of it originally containing these 14 books.

The King James Bible in 1611 included 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, as well as 14 other books usually called the Apocrypha.[i] The presence of the Apocrypha in the first King James Bible is set forth by the anti-KJVists as “proof positive” that the King James Bible cannot be defended,[ii] often asking, “Why do advocates of the King James Bible reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha?”[iii]

Some history regarding the Apocrypha

Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate, “introduced the term ‘Apocrypha’ to denote ‘books of the church’, as distinct from ‘books of the canon’.”[iv] All complete English translations of the Bible (Old and New Testaments, e.g. Wycliffe, Matthew’s, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop’s) printed up to the 16th century included an Apocrypha, though it was not identical in all of them. The first Bible in English without the Apocrypha was the 1599 Geneva Bible. This section was also found in Bibles in other languages, such as Luther’s German translation, the Zürich Bible, the Spanish Reina edition, and so forth. Its long historical connection to the sacred writings goes back to inclusion in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. One can complain that these books were there, and argue about why they were there – but they were there nonetheless. There is nothing unusual or particularly significant about its inclusion in the King James Bible of 1611. King James Bibles may have officially included the Apocrypha until 1666, but various printings without it – dated as early 1619 – have been found. The much-touted Revised Version “replacement”[v] of the King James Bible included these books,[vi] as did the Revised Standard Version (1946-1957).[vii] Other modern English Bibles which contain the Apocrypha include New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Millennium Bible, World English Bible.

These books were placed at the end of the Old Testament and before the New, to set them apart from the canonical Scriptures. “…the historical context for Protestant English translations of the Bible out of which the KJB would emerge was one that included placing the books of the Apocrypha as a separate collection at the end of the Old Testament.” The Geneva Bible included a preface that the books of the Apocrypha “were not to be read or expounded publicly in church and could only prove doctrine inasmuch as they agree with the” Old and New Testaments.[viii] “[I]t was not until the 19th century that the removal of the Apocrypha from all Protestant Bibles became the norm.”[ix]

King James Translators and the Apocrypha

“The proposal for a new translation came from Dr. John Reynolds [Rainolds], President of Corpus Christi College at Oxford, a leader of the Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his day. Reynolds’s proposal caught King James’ fancy and he set in order the machinery to bring about the translation.”[x]

As yet I have not found much in the way of direct statements on the Apocrypha by the King James Bible translators. King James himself perhaps preferred it more than the Puritans, but did not count the books inspired (See The King James Version at 400, pages 348-349).

Translator George Abbot, when later the Archbishop of Canterbury, issued an edict “that forbade the publication of Bibles without the Apocrypha.”[xi] But both the Puritans and High-Church Anglicans apparently subscribed to “Article VI on the Holy Scriptures” from the Book of Articles which was “agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy in the convocation holden at London in the year 1562...” Referencing the Apocrypha, Article VI stated, “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

    “The Third Book of Esdras. [I Esdras]

    “The Fourth Book of Esdras. [II Esdras]

    “The Book of Tobias. [Tobit]

    “The Book of Judith. [Judeth]

    “The rest of the Book of Esther. [The rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther]

    “The Book of Wisdom. [The Wisdom of Solomon]

    “Jesus the Son of Sirach. [The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus]

    “Baruch the Prophet. [Baruch]

    “The Song of the Three Children. [The Song of the Three Holy Children]

    “The Story of Susanna. [The history of Susanna]

    “Of Bel and the Dragon. [The history of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon]

    “The Prayer of Manasses. [The prayer of Manasses, King of Judah]

    “The First Book of Maccabees. [The first book of the Maccabees]

    “The Second Book of Maccabees. [The second book of the Maccabees]”[xii]

Dr. John Rainolds, the Puritan leader who suggested to the new Bible translation, opposed the use of the Apocrypha. At the January 1604 Hampton Court Conference, he “insisted boldly on various points” and demanded “the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service.”[xiii] Puritans argued that some of the Apocrypha contained “manifest errors, directly repugnant to the Scriptures.”[xiv] “Rainolds himself had from the late 1580s frequently lectured at Oxford on the Apocrypha, directing his ire at the Jesuit Bellarmine. These 250 lectures were published posthumously as Censura librorum apocryphorum veteris testament (Oppenheim, 1611), a monumental work of erudition whose central arguments influenced various shades of Protestant thinking on the subject throughout the seventeenth century.”[xv]

Other evidences that indicate the King James translators (and publishers) did not hold the Apocrypha as inspired include:

• The King James Bible segregates these apocryphal books together in a section between the Old and New Testaments, unlike Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles.
• Notations in certain book titles hint at a lower view of the Apocrypha. For example, the title of “The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther” adds, “which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde.” The additions to Daniel are marked as “That which followeth is not in the Hebrew” [The Song of the three holy children] and “it is not in Hebrew” [The history of Susanna].
• There is other material added between the covers, which is obviously not intended to be on the same level as inspired Scipture; for example, the genealogy on page 76 (lxxvi).

Hypocritical objection to the Apocrypha
Many modern scholars consider the Codex Vaticanus one of the best Greek texts, with the Codex Sinaiticus an important support for critical studies. The Codex Vaticanus contained most of the Apocrypha and the surviving Codex Sinaiticus contains seven books the Apocrypha – as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. These codices are the dual support of popular Greek New Testaments and the modern translations founded on them. Those who advocate these texts and translations should be ashamed to harp about the Apocrypha being in the King James Bible, when it is found in their favored texts and sometimes in their favorite translations.[xvi]

Conclusion
Fourteen books of the Apocrypha are found in the King James Bible. It is a matter of historical record. It is no stain on the King James Bible. Modern proponents of the King James Bible may well follow the precedent of the translators and others – “The books commonly called Apocrypha” are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon of Scripture. They are not authoritative as a rule of faith and practice, but may be read like any other human writing.

[Note: For other points made against the Apocrypha as scripture, see Against the Apocrypha as Scripture.]

---

[i] I use “Apocrypha” as a singular noun standing for fourteen non-canonical books associated with the Bible.

[ii] A recent exchange with a closet anti-KJVist provided the impetus for this post. “Closet” anti-KJVists often couch their objections in “I love the KJV, but…” There are people who sincerely use this phrase, but closet anti-KJVists use it to deflect objections when their obvious motives are about to be uncovered.

[iii] The design of this rhetorical question is to posit that “the KJV as preferred text” is indefensible. If supporters of the King James Bible have rejected the Apocrypha, then if follows (so they say) that they should reject the King James Bible as well.

[iv] Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, Gordon Campbell, London: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 44; Much can be found online claiming that the Roman Catholic Church had an early and long-established canon including the “Apocrypha,” or deuterocanonical works (literally meaning a second canon; to the Catholics this means second in chronology, while to the Orthodox it means second in authority). Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission study, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (English translation copyright 2002) admits that the “Apocrypha” or “deuterocanonical” works “were accepted only after centuries of hesitation” and this was not resolved (for them) until the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564. The Apocrypha of the Church of England and the section in the King James Bible is distinct from the Roman Catholic deutero-canon. The King James Bible includes three books (1 Esdras/3 Esdras, 2 Esdras/4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh) which were not included in the list of the Council of Trent. The Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books vary somewhat from both of these.

[v] Of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort fame.

[vi] And included 70 more verses of 2 Esdras; this comes out as 140 verses in chapter 7 rather than 70 verses.

[vii] Though they are often printed without them.

[viii] The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, p. 347

[ix] Jeffrey Khoo

[x] C. Matthew McMahon

[xi] The King James Version at 400, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, p. 349

[xii] The first book name in the list is from the “Book of Articles,” while the book name that follows in brackets is from the King James Bible.

[xiii] Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, Vol. III, London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, 1865, p. 15

[xiv] The Summe and Substance of the Conference: Which It Pleased His Excellent Majestie to Have with the Lords, Bishops, and others of his Clergie...at Hampton Court, William Barlow, n.p. 1804, pp. 44-45; German Reformer Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt divided the Apocrypha into non-inspired but good books and “foolish writings ‘worthy of the Censor’s ban’.” Martin Luther’s Bible set them apart, noting that these books “are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” (See The Apocrypha, Martin Goodman, Editor, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 3.)

[xv] The Apocrypha in Early Modern England, Ariel Hessayon, p. 143; See also The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, p. 106

[xvi] KJV-Onlyists often invite these kinds of arguments with ill-advised and hypocritical arguments of their own.

Against the Apocrypha as Scripture

As a sort of addendum to posts on the Apocrypha, I notice a few points made against the Apocrypha as inspired scripture:

• The Apocrypha contains several false teachings. While I agree with this statement, it is lacking as a matter of proof since it is based on the prior assumption that the Apocrypha are not scripture.
• There are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament, by either Jesus or his disciples. Though some claim there are similarities between the New Testament and some apocryphal writings, point of origin cannot be proven in mere references to common themes.
• Among the strongest points is that of Jesus’s references to a complete Old Testament canon. For example, Luke 24:44 records, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” This reference covers the three-fold division of the Old Testament, and excludes the so-called Apocrypha. Again in Luke 11:51 Jesus said, “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” In his illustration and condemnation, Jesus draws from the entire range of the accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture from one end to the other – “From the blood of Abel” recorded in the first book in order of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 4:8) “unto the blood of Zecharias” recorded in the last book in order of the Hebrew Bible (2 Chronicles 24:18-21). Unlike the order in our English Bibles, in the Hebrew Canon the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. Jesus effectually rejects the Apocrypha as Scripture by addressing a “list” or order of the books of the Bible that accepts the recognized canon and does not include the secondary additions.

Notes on the Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew contained 24 books – all of the same books as our 39 books, but arranged differently, both in order and by combination. In some cases what appear as two or more books in the English canon are combined in one book in the Hebrew canon. All of the 12 Minor Prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were considered one book. 1 & 2 Samuel are considered one book, as are 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles.

The Hebrew Bible was organized into three main sections – the law (Torah, or Teaching or Pentateuch), the prophets (Nebiʾim), and the psalms (Ketubim, or Writings or Hagiographa). The complete canon is referred to as the Tanakh (a word combining the first letter of the names of the three main sections). The sections or subdivisions are: Law/Torah (5 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Prophets/Neviʾim (8 books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets) and Psalms/Ketuvim (11 books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles).

Baptists and the Apocrypha

What is the Apocrypha? The books known by most Baptists and Protestants as the Apocrypha are fourteen extra books included in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. These are also found in the Greek Septuagint. There is some variation in what Protestants, Roman Catholics the Greek Orthodox consider to be the books of the Apocrypha.

The fourteen books as found in my King James Version 1611 (Thomas Nelson Publishers) are: I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther (usually called Additions to Esther), The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (the Epistle of Jeremiah appears as Chapter Six of Baruch), The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh King of Judah, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees.

Should we read and study them? Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox accept them as inspired. Since we do not recognize these books as inspired, what should be our relationship to them? On one extreme are those who advocate that we should read them in order to understand the Scriptures, almost making them an interpreter of Scripture. On the other extreme are those who advocate must not read them at all, rather avoiding them like the plague.

The testimony of our forefathers in the 1689 London Confession of Faith (which follows the Westminster 1647) is good advice. They wrote, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

Approach the Apocrypha cautiously, as you would any human writing. These books are not inspired. They contain mixtures of truth and error, historical accounts and fanciful tales. Unless you are willing to swear off reading all human writings (including this blog and whatever you just wrote!), then do not say we cannot read them. On the other hand, do not imply that we must read them in order to understand and interpret the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and completely furnish us.

1689 London Baptist Confession