Another King James Bible Believer

Why was the Apocrypha in the early King James Bible?




Note" You can also listen to our Youtube video teaching on the subject of the Apocrypha and the King James Bible here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3LYVuXKOHE&list=PL16B2149EE5E54979&index=35 

Why did the 1611 King James Bible include the Apocrypha?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), the Zurich Bible 1530, the French Olivetan 1535, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. The Reformation bibles included the books known as the Apocrypha. In 1666 they began to print King James Bibles without the Apocryphal books, and eventually they stopped including them altogether.

The Geneva Bible also had several Apocryphal references in it's footnotes, "In the 1560 edition, the Geneva listed Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2:18 as a cross reference for Matthew 27:43. The Geneva Bible cross references James 3:2 with the book of Sirach 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11. It cross references Hebrews 1:3 with Wisdom 7:26.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, (you can get a reprint from Thomas Nelson Publishers for about 20 dollars), the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets".  Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. 

It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha".  Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."  All King James Bible contained the Apocrypha in the inter-testamental section until 1666.  Then it began to be omitted in subsequent printings.

A brother at another Christian club pointed out the following points regarding the KJB and the Apocrypha issue: "A few observations concerning the Apocrypha in the King James Bible: (1) The KJB 1611 printing had a fancy title page that says "The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament, and the New". There is no mention of the Apocrypha here. So what was considered "The Holy Bible" comprised the Old and New Testaments. (2) The New Testament also had a fancy title page which says, "The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". Note again there is no mention of the Apocrypha. (3) The Apocrypha was placed by itself in between the two testaments. (4) The Apocrypha had no fancy title page preceding it, only the title "Apocrypha". (5) The word "apocrypha" is defined in a number of ways including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity".

 

Is it not true that the Protestants used the word Apocrypha to mean that these writings were spurious and of questionable authenticity? If this is how the word apocrypha was used then simply labeling the section "Apocrypha" indicated that they did not esteem these writings as part of the canonical Scriptures."

 

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NIV.  These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.  

It is also hypocritical because one of the biggest promoters of the ever changing Critical Text is the Dallas Theological Seminary internet site of Daniel Wallace and company, called  the NET version, and they clearly include the Apocrypha in their "bible".  You can see it here:  http://bible.org/netbible/


 Here is a Catholic book store site where you can buy the ESV with the Apocryphal books included.  This version has the full backing of the Catholic church, but you will not find the King James Bible being sold here -

 

 

http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html

You can also get The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha of 1989, which is another Nestle-Aland Critical Greek Text edition. This is a recent revision of The New English Bible that came out in 1970.  I have a copy of it right here in my study.

 

There are several modern English bibles that are based on the Critical text that also include the Apocrypha.  You can see many of these online here - https://www.biblegateway.com


Among these are The RSV 1971, The NRSV 1989 Anglicized Catholic Edition, The Common English Bible 2011, The Good News Translation 1992, and the Wycliffe Bible 2001 updated version.

 

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

 Most of the KJB translators were from the Anglican church, which at that time was far more Orthodox in their beliefs that is the present day Apostate Anglican church.

They all held to the believes of the document called The 39 Articles. The Puritans, who also took part in the translation of the King James Bible, were in agreement.

You can see The 39 Articles here -
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

The 39 Articles form the basic summary of belief of the Church of England. They were drawn up by the Church in convocation in 1563 on the basis of the 42 Articles of 1553. Clergymen were ordered to subscribe to the 39 Articles by Act of Parliament in 1571.

Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings    The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

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
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach    Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. (End of Article 6 on the Canon of Scripture)

 

KJV Today has some good points about the Apocrypha


http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/editions


Removal of the Apocrypha


“The Apocrypha was included in early printings of the KJV.  The Church of England, having come out of the Roman Catholic Church, had continued the practice of including the Apocryphal books in the Bible.  However, the Church of England has a history of disregarding the Apocrypha as doctrinally instructive scripture.  King James himself said, “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron).  


There were many reasons to include the Apocrypha within the pages of the Bible during the 17th century.  Protestants of the time were deeply engaged in debates with Catholics over doctrine, so Protestant pastors and theologians were served well by being well-acquainted with the Apocrypha which formed the basis of several Catholic doctrines.  Some books, such as Maccabees and Sirach, are quoted in the Talmud; so familiarity with the Apocrypha can be helpful to understand Judaism during the time of Jesus Christ.  The fulfillment of some Old testament prophecies, such as those in Daniel, can be confirmed by the historical information in the Apocryphal books such as Maccabees.  Despite its inclusion in the KJV, however, the translators did not consider the Apocrypha as part of scripture.” 

 

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the 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."

Martin Luther, whose German Bible version also included the Apocrypha between the Testaments, just like the King James Bible, said in a note on the Apocrypha: "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.

Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

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 as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1537, Taverner's Bible 1539, the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible of 1560.

Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the 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 (WCF 1:3).

Even today the same "Evangelical" Publishing Houses who print the NIV, NASB, ESV continue to publish Bible versions that contain the Apocryphal books. Zondervan publishers, who put out the NIV, also publish a combined New American Standard Bible - The Message edition that includes the Apocrypha. The New Living Translation (based on the same Westcott-Hort N.T. texts as the NASB, NIV, ESV) from Tyndale Press also contains the Apocryphal books. Zondervan also publishes the New Revised Standard Version, the RSV, and the New American Bible, all three of which contain the Apocrypha. You can even get a Today's English Version Catholic edition 1992 put out by the same American Bible Society, and it contains the whole of the Apocryphal books in its pages.

It is more than a little hypocritical of those who promote the modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. to condemn the King James Bible of having at one time placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the two Testaments, when the very texts used as the basis for these modern translations contained the same Apocryphal books MIXED AND MINGLED among the other O.T. Scriptures themselves, and most "evangelical publishers" continue to this day to publish Catholic and Protestant editions that still contain these books.

Will Kinney  

 

Notes from the Internet


The Apocrypha and the King James Bible 

By Bryan C. Ross 


http://www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/PastorsPen/The%20Apocrypha%20and%20the%20King%20James%20Bible.pdf


The Coverdale Bible was the first to locate the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. In doing so, Coverdale emphasized their secondary importance when he wrote, “The books and treatise, which among the father’s of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrews (Coverdale Bible, page 375).” Coverdale, was the first translator to set apart the apocryphal books as having a distinct place and a lesser value than the canonical books. His precedent established the standard format for Protestant English Bibles. 

The Second Cambridge Company assigned with the task of translating the Apocrypha under the leadership of John Duport, gave the following reasons for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon, or list of inspired Scriptures. 

  1. “Not one of them is in the Hebrew langue, 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 sanction 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 Book of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies
    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, expect one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable as ancient documents, illustrative of manners, language, opinions and history of the East.” (McClure, 185-186)

The argument that the King James Version translators must have considered the Apocrypha to be inspired since they included it in the 1611 edition is wrong. The Apocrypha was included based upon the historical practice up to that time to include it. However, it is clear that neither King James nor the translators considered the Apocrypha to be inspired, and in fact, the very layout and design of the 1611 edition testifies to the face that the Apocrypha was not considered canonical. Subsequent to 1611, as the religious and political situation in England changed so did the handling of the Apocrypha in the English Bible. By the time the text of the King James Bible was standardized in 1769, it had long been resolved that the Apocrypha would not be included in Protestant editions of the Bible, and thus, the Apocrypha went from being included in a manner that testified to its lack of canonicity to being omitted in its entirety. 

 


 

 

 Additional Notes from the Internet Clubs -

At one of the internet Christian clubs a fellow kept harping on the issue of the Apocryphal books being included in the early printings of the King James Bible.  Here is his post and my reply to him. The spelling mistakes are his ;-) 

Brian BurkhartCostello - " i refuse to let this die.  so again i ask you if the KJV1611 is the inspired inerant word of God why do you not consider the APOCRYPHA scripture, is it not inspired, is it not inearant. so again i say you accept the apocrypha as scripture, becasue it is either scripture or the 1611 is not the perfect translation?"

Hi Brian. The reason you refuse to let this die is because you do not believe that any Bible every printed or in existence now IS the 100% inerrant God and if you can "prove" (at least in your own mind) the the King James Bible is not inerrant, then you will feel better about your own position of unbelief in an inerrant Bible.

You have now summarily dismissed the Reformation bibles as being inerrant. The Apocrypha was included NOT as inspired Scripture (the KJB translators did not believe it was inspired of God) but was placed in between the Two Testaments and not as part of the Old or New Testaments.

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), the Zurich Bible 1530, the French Olivetan 1535, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture (except in the case of the Douay-Rheims). The Reformation bibles included the books known as the Apocrypha.

So, let's try this, Brian. All printings of the King James Bible contained the inter-testamental placing of the Apocryphal books until 1666. After that they began to print the KJB without the Apocrypha and it was gradually phased out all together. So, here is the question for you. Would you then be willing to affirm that any King James Bible printed after 1666 that does not contain the Apocrypha IS the inerrant words of God?

Of course you won't. This just shows that your Apocrypha objection thingy is just a pretext, a lame excuse and a smokescreen for your basic unbelief in the existence of any Bible in any language that IS the inerrant words of God.

Maybe what you should do is write your own bible version. That is the only way you will be happy. Of course, YOU will be the ONLY one who thinks your peculiar bible version is inerrant, but at least you can then tell others that you have an inerrant bible even though nobody else agrees with you. Would that make you feel better?

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

 Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

 More Notes from the Internet

 

At our Facebook King James Bible Debate forum a pastor from Ireland posted a video he had made showing where the KJB had cross referenced in the margin a couple of passages from the Apocryphal books. His point was to try to prove that the KJB is not the infallible words of God because they did this. Here is a link to his video of about 6 minutes and then a very good response from another brother Paul.

 

 

 

James Owens

Check out this video on YouTube:

 

http://youtu.be/stBVn5jXYqg


 

Paul T. responds:  Cross references do not an inspired scripture prove. I watched your video and remain firmly unconvinced. It has been stated before that the translators thought the books to be of historical value, thus their inclusion but only between the testaments and not interspersed in the old testament. References to the Apocryphal books serve to expand knowledge and show a possible or exact link between the two passages. As a source of intertestamental history the Apocryphal books do have value and probably do contain words of God, but wouldn't and haven't been considered *the* word of God by any protestants I've come across in research.


Going back prior to the KJB we have this statement from the Geneva Bible:

"These bokes that follow in order unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes, which were not received by a comune consent to be red and expounded publickely in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded : but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and 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 confirme 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 broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children."

The key there being "save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same,"

Article 6 of the Anglican church 'Articles of Religion' from 1562 states specifically this, "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" and then also states that they do consider the 66 books of the OT and NT as canonical, which was NOT said about the Apocrypha. 

So there we have both Anglican and Puritan statements as to their belief in the Apocrypha not being canonical.

With Apocrypha meaning spurious or non-canonical, why would they be considered as inspired by the translators and yet set between the testaments behind a title page labeled 'Apocrypha'? 

I've never read anything in several histories of the KJB or biographies of the translators that would lead me to believe that they supported the Apocrypha as inspired. 

If you have stronger evidences than cross references that you can show truly contradict the statements made by Anglicans and Puritans themselves, then please present them so they can be considered."


Notes from the Internet

What is the Apocrypha?

 The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of eleven or twelve books, depending upon how they are divided, that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Old Testament. The Protestants reject these books as Holy Scripture for the following reasons.

 

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture

 

There are doctrines and practices contained in the Apocrypha that are contrary to what the Scripture teaches. They include the following.

They Teach A Person Is Saved By Works

 

In the Apocrypha proof texts can be found to support the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by human works and not faith alone. The Apocrypha contains the following verses.

 

For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life (Tobit 12:9).

 

In another place in Tobit it says.

 

So now, my children see what almsgiving accomplishes, and what injustice does it brings death! (Tobit 14:11).

 

In the Book of First Maccabees it says.

 

Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (First Maccabees 2:52).

 

The Bible, on the other hand, says that a person is saved by grace through faith. It is not based upon our good works.

 

For by grace  are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9).

 

The Non-biblical Doctrine Of Purgatory Is Taught In The Apocrypha

 

The doctrine of purgatory - a place of purging between heaven and hell - is taught in the Apocrypha. It says.

 

So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin (Second Maccabees 12:41-45).

 

The Bible teaches that, upon death, one either goes to be with the Lord or is sent away from Him - there is no middle place. The writer to the Hebrews stated.

 

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27).

 

According To The Apocrypha God Hears The Prayers Of The Dead

 

We find the Book of Baruch teaching that God hears the prayers of those who have died.

 

O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, the children of those who sinned before you, who did not heed the voice of the Lord their God, so that calamities have clung to us (Baruch 3:4).

 

The dead do not pray for the living. Only the living upon the earth pray for the other living ones on the earth.

The Apocrypha Teaches The Pre-existence Of Souls

 

The doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is found in the Apocrypha.

 

As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body (Wisdom 8:19,20).

 

Scripture does not teach that souls have any existence before they are united into a body.

It Teaches Creation Out Of Pre-Existent Matter

 

The doctrine of creation out of pre-existent matter is taught in the Apocrypha.

 

For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears, or bold lions (Wisdom 11:17).

 

The Bible says that God's creation was out of nothing.

 

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible (Hebrews 11:3).

 

The Apocrypha Say The Body Weighs Down The Soul

 

The idea of the body as a weight upon the soul is found in the Apocrypha.

 

For a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthy tent burdens the thoughtful mind (Wisdom 9:15).

 

The idea that the body weighs down the soul is not biblical - the body is not evil.

 

All of these doctrines are contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture.

 

2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture

 

Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and Hs apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, they never quoted from the Apocrypha.

Allusions Are Not The Same As Scripture

 

While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.

No Statement Introduced By "It Is Written"

 

In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

 

Furthermore no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.

There Are Others Books Directly Quoted Apart From Apocrypha

 

Add to this, there are certain books that both Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church reject as Scripture that are actually cited in the New Testament. Jude cites the apocryphal book of Enoch.

 

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 14,15).

 

Paul cites the name of the magicians of Pharaoh who opposed Moses. These names are not mentioned in the Old Testament.

 

"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (2 Timothy 3:8).

 

If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures.

 

The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is another indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha.

 

3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture

 

The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. On the contrary, they denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

 

4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years

 

The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance occurred during this time. READ MORE:

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

-PAXP-deijE.gif


 Errors in the Apocrypha

by Matt Slick

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired.  These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors.  But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church.  If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?  The following references can be verified athttp://www.newadvent.org/bible.

Problems in the Apocrypha

When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems.  For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils. 

Condones the use of magic

Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits?  Of course not.  Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:

  • Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."  
  • Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins.  The blood of Christ is what cleanses us--not money or food given to poor people.  "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:

2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people?  Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Historical Errors

Wrong historical facts:

  • Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
  • Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years.  "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems.  From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts--it is full of false and unbiblical teachings.  It isn't inspired of God.  Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired.  This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition rather than God's absolute truth.

Notes from the Internet - 
 
Jack McElroy's Thoughts on the Apocrypha

 

Jack McElroy - Here’s my take on the Apocrypha and whether or not it should be included in "the Bible" or even whether it should be regarded as authentic Scripture. 

 

Now this comes from a deductive reasoning point of view. 

 

As has already been  posted, the reformers and creators of the early editions of the English Bible as well as others did not consider the apocryphal books as Scripture.

 

There is no question that the early editions of the English Bible as well as the 1611 King James Bible DID include the Apocrypha in their printings. But then over time those books were not reprinted.

 

The King James Bible has a 400 history year history of results. It's been reprinted literally billions of times–– More than any other Bible on the planet. 

 

It looks like, acts like and sounds like the standard since the invention of printing with moveable type.

 

If it’s not the standard then which one is?

 

My view is that it's the Lord Jesus Christ who is in charge of the Bible project. He has to be because it's his words and not men's words. 

 

That being my presupposition it seems to me that if the Apocrypha were critical and if the Apocrypha contained his words then it would never have been dropped out in the first place.

 

It would have continued to be printed along with the old and new Testaments.

 

Again I'm brought to this conclusion by deductive reasoning.

 

It's the same with variant readings. If you chase variant readings you will never come to a conclusion as to which ones are authentic and which are not. It depends on who you ask.

 

 

If you rely on the pseudo-science of textual criticism to try and determine which readings are original and which are not you will never come to the knowledge of the truth. 

 

It's impossible because they use inductive reasoning. Bottom up logic. And there will always be dissenting opinions.

 

You're trying to build a complex jigsaw puzzle without the cover image. And you’ve been given too many puzzle parts that look alike and sometimes fit almost alike.

 

At the end of the day our only hope just like our only hope of salvation depends on the Lord Jesus Christ to provide us with a book that's got all of his words in it and only his words in it.

 

So my conclusion is that the Apocrypha can't be Scripture because if it was it would've been included in all the editions of the King James Bible-and it wasn't. 

 

Hence I believe it is not the Apocrypha is not Scripture.


9:41pm Jul 1
A few observations concerning the Apocrypha in the King James Bible: (1) The KJB 1611 printing had a fancy title page that says "The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament, and the New". There is no mention of the Apocrypha here. So what was considered "The Holy Bible" comprised the Old and New Testaments. (2) The New Testament also had a fancy title page which says, "The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". Note again there is no mention of the Apocrypha. (3) The Apocrypha was placed by itself in between the two testaments. (4) The Apocrypha had no fancy title page preceding it, only the title "Apocrypha". (5) The word "apocrypha" is defined in a number of ways including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity". Is it not true that the protestants used the word Apocrypha to mean that these writings were spurious and of questionable authenticity? If this is how the word apocrypha was used then simply labeling the section "Apocrypha" indicated that they did not esteem these writings as part of the canonical Scriptures.