The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The apocrypha books were never accepted by the original Christian church because the first church members were primarily Jews and they did not see these books as God-given Scripture. Should the Apocrypha Books Be Included in the Bible? The early church fathers, historians, and elders all rejected the extra-biblical books that we call the apocrypha. Bible verses about Apocrypha. Mark 16:9-20 ESV / 3 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he.
Meaning: spurious, writings that are not considered genuine and therefore not part of authentic Scripture; not approved
Greek: apo—“sprung from, descended from” + kryptein—“hidden; obscure, hard to understand,” thus of hidden or unknown authorship
In modern times, some have deceptively referred to these many books as “the Lost Books of the Bible.” Nothing could be further from the truth. These books have not been lost; Christians and Jews have always known about them. The commonly accepted correct name is “the apocrypha”—writings that have come from hidden or unknown authors.
This name is given to certain ancient writings which found a place in the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament used by Catholics today. When examined with discernment and thorough understand of what actual Scripture says, it is obvious that they are part of Satan’s often effective plan to confuse and deceive the naive and uninformed.
They are NOT accepted as Scripture by Protestants or Jews. Unfortunately, some were appended to Bible translations in the 16th century. However, they should not be regarded in any sense as parts of the true inspiredWord of God or true Divine revelation.
Why rejected?
Their actual authorship is unknown and undiscoverable, and their true origins doubtful.
The authority of our Lord and his Apostles confirmed the ordinary Jewish canon of Scripture, which was the same as we have today.
- In His wisdom, God proved the identity and authority of the true Apostles of Christ through numerous miracles, signs and wonders. That was the whole purpose of those thousands of miracles. And that is why those signs ended once their authority was amply established and God’s inspired Word was complete.
The Apostles knew about them, but did not use them. They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote from the rest of Septuagint.
These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the “period of silence,” from the time of Malachi, after which direct revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.
The contents of the books themselves show that they are not part of Scripture.
Partial list of Old Testament times apocrypha
Even ancient Jewish writers and rabbis did not accept them as Scripture.
Very Rare Apocrypha Rejected Scriptures Jesus
- Additions to Esther
- Apocalypse of Adam
- Apocalypse of Moses
- Bel and the Dragon (an addition to Daniel)
- Book of Baruch
- Book of Wisdom
- Books of Adam
- Books of Esdras
- Books of the Maccabees
- Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan
- Daniel and Susanna (addition to Daniel)
- Ecclesiasticus—an ancient non-inspired Hebrew book of wisdom
- Judith
- Letter of Jeremiah
- Life of Adam and Eve
- Odes of Solomon
- Prayer of Azariah (addition to Daniel)
- Prayer of Manasseh
- Psalm 151
- Psalms of Solomon—NOT the same as Songs of Solomon
- Secrets of Enoch (aka Second Book of Enoch)
- Sirach
- Testament of Adam
- Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
- Tobit
- Wisdom of Solomon
Partial list of New Testament times Apocrypha
They are very many of these and contain clear evidences of their NON-apostolic origin. These writings are utterly unworthy of regard.
- 3 Corinthians
- Acts 29
- Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle
- Acts of Andrew
- Acts of Andrew and Matthias
- Acts of Barnabas
- Acts of John the Theologian
- Acts of John
- Acts of Paul
- Acts of Paul and Thecla
- Acts of Peter
- Acts of Peter and Andrew
- Acts of Peter and Paul
- Acts of Philip
- Acts of Thaddeus (aka Epistles of Pontius Pilate)
- Acts of Thomas
- Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
- Apocalypse of Paul
- Apocalypse of Peter
- Apocalypse of Thomas
- Apocryphon of James
- Apocryphon of John
- Book of James (not to be confused with the Epistle of James)
- Book of John concerning the dormition of Mary
- Book of John the Evangelist
- Book of Thomas the Contender
- Consumation of Thomas
- Diatession
- Epistle of Barnabas
- Epistle of the Apostles
- Epistle to the Laodiceans
- Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
- Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
- Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
- First Apocalypse of James
- First Infancy Gospel of Jesus Christ
- Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)
- Gospel of Barnabas
- Gospel of Bartholomew
- Gospel of James (aka Infancy Gospel of James or Protevangelium of James
- Gospel of Mary
- Gospel of Nicodemus (aka Acts of Pilate)
- Gospel of Peter
- Gospel of Philip
- Gospel of the Lord (Marcion)
- Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
- Gospel of Matthias (possibly the same as Traditions of Matthias)
- Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
- Gospel of Thomas
- History of Joseph the Carpenter
- Infancy Gospel of Matthew
- Infancy Gospel of Thomas
- Letter of Peter to Philip
- Martyrdom of Bartholomew
- Martyrdom of Matthew
- Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
- Paul and Seneca
- Revelation of John the Theologian
- Revelation of Paul
- Second Apocalypse of James
- Secret Gospel of Mark
- Shepherd of Hermas
- Teaching of Thaddeus
- Teachings of the Twelve Apostles
ALSO SEE
- When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, does that imply that it is completely accurate, or does it contain insignificant inaccuracies in details of history and science? Answer
- How do we know the canon of Scripture (the Bible) is TRUE? Answer
- What issues often separate Roman Catholics from God? Answer
- CATHOLIC PRIESTS—Why do some feel it necessary to give up their religion to follow Christ? Answer
- CATHOLIC NUNS—Why do some feel it necessary to give up their religion to follow Christ? Answer
- Do you think like a Catholic or a Protestant? Take a short quiz to find out.
Truth about the Apocrypha
The books which comprise our Bible, sixty-six in number, from Genesis through Revelation, have been subjected to every internal and external test imaginable. Their authenticity and canonicity have been reliably established. There are other books, however, which some believe should be considered part of the Bible. These books are called the Apocrypha. The word 'apocrypha' is of Greek origin, actually being simply a transliteration of the original Greek word. 'Apocrypha' is used in Mark 4: 22 and is commonly translated 'secret.' The evolution of the word 'apocrypha' simply meaning secret or hidden to how it is commonly used today is of interest and provides a look at the climate that fostered the 'apocrypha books.' It appears that in the beginning, 'apocrypha' was a term used to designate religious books that were circulating among the inner circle of a group and were kept hidden from the public because people at large rejected the authority of these books. There was the thinking that these books contained information that was esoteric and only for special ones; hence, the evolved term 'apocrypha' evoked the mysterious and clandestine.
The apocryphal books. In the main, when the Apocrypha is mentioned the fourteen or fifteen books of the 'Old Testament' are meant. However, there are other writings that are known as the New Testament apocrypha. Apocrypha also can have reference to a book whose origin was doubtful or unknown. The 'Old Testament apocrypha' are believed to have been written during the period of 200 B.C. to 100 A.D. Some of perhaps the better known are 'The Wisdom of Solomon,' The Additions to the Book of Esther,' and 'The First and Second Maccabees.' The 'Catholic Bible' often has twelve of these apocryphal books interspersed among and attached to the undisputed thirty-nine books of the Hebrew scriptures, I understand.
Involved in a study of the apocrypha is the matter of canonicity. The term 'canon' is from the Greek word kanon. Kanon, based on its derivation means a rod or measuring device and came to mean a norm or rule. Canon came to be used to denote the recognized books of sacred writings and was thus used in the fourth century. The act, fact, and science of canonicity or canonizing is a fascinating study (the terms apocrypha and canonicity are basically antithetical and opposite in meaning, climate, and concept).
The history of the Hebrews does not provide us with real insight as to their process of canonicity or how they determined the authenticity of a book considered as scripture. It is evident, however, that they did have 'an act' that so recognized and declared a book as sacred (2 Kgs. 22: 8). One reason we do not have much insight as to the science of canonicity during the time of the writing and acceptance of the thirty-nine Hebrew books that comprise what man calls the 'Old Testament' is because there really was no need. I say this because of the strict practices of the Jews relative to the writings of those men such as Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. whose inspiration was established. The writings were carefully protected and greatly valued (cp. Deut. 31: 9, 24-26, I Kgs. 8: 9). Copies of the original writings were made in the most controlled atmosphere possible and imaginable (cp. Prov. 25: 1). There were no translations, as such, until about 270 B. C.; hence, corruption from translation was non-existent.
Analysis and 'canonicity' determination relative to the twenty-seven books of the New Testament involved both internal and external considerations. The authorship, style of writing, general content, and the extant view of the book by contemporaries were all considerations used in pronouncing a New Testament book as part of the sacred canon. A New Testament book could also be used to verify the canonicity of a Hebrew book, once the authenticity of the New Testament was clearly established. For instance, about thirty-one of the Hebrew books are quoted and acknowledged by New Testament writers (the fact that eight out of the 39 are not quoted does not mean they are non-canonical).
Very Rare Apocrypha I Rejected Scriptures Verses
Just as was the case with the thirty-nine Hebrew books found in our Bibles, the New Testament books were known by their contemporaries as bearing the vestiges of inspiration (2 Pet. 1: 21; 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17). In about the year A. D. 90, the Jewish Council of Jamnia ruled though a process of debate, examination, and canonicity that the Hebrew canon should consist of the thirty-nine books commonly found in such translations as the King James (Answers to Tough Questions, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, pg. 37). In 327 A. D., Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of twenty-seven New Testament books that were recognized in his day as authentic (How we got the Bible, by Neil Lightfoot, pg. 85). These are the same twenty-seven books as are found in our standard New Testaments today. These sixty-six books commonly comprising our Bibles all had the requisite recognition by those who were in a position to really know as to the acceptance of the claims of these books. For instance, Paul wrote:
'If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write you are the commandments of the Lord' (I Cor. 14: 37). (The apocrypha, by contrast, make more of a claim of simply being history books rather than being inspired of God, cp. II Maccabees 2: 23, 15: 38.)
Arguments in favor of the apocrypha. First, it might come as a surprise but the Catholic Church that is so instrumental in presenting the apocrypha books as part of the sacred canon did not so recognize these apocrypha books until about fifteen hundred years removed from the First Century. It was in the Council of Trent, 1545-1563 A.D. that the Roman Catholic Church declared the apocrypha as canonical, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned.
There have been many arguments advanced in favor of the apocrypha. The first and foremost of which is based on the first translation made of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, translated into Greek in about 270 B. C. More of the extant apocrypha books began to be added to the Septuagint as time progressed, that is, to some of the copies of the Septuagint. Since Jesus and New Testament writers often quoted from the Septuagint when quoting Hebrew scriptures (some say that 300 out of the 350 quotations of Hebrew scriptures by Jesus are from the Septuagint), we are told that such a fact proves that the apocrypha books are to be accepted as part of the Bible today. We have noticed that just about all the Hebrew books are referenced by New Testament writers; however, while Jesus and the New Testament writers often quoted from the books of the 'Old Testament,' even from the Septuagint that had some versions containing apocrypha books, they never once quoted from the apocrypha books.
In attempting to validate the apocrypha, it is stated that the 'Church fathers' referenced the apocrypha books. It is true that Iranaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria recognized the apocrypha, as did the Syriac Church in the fourth century. Augustine, who presided over the Councils at Hippo and Carthage reportedly also held these books as inspired. Later, though, Augustine is said to have rejected these books as outside the canon and inferior to the Hebrew scriptures. Also, just as many leading men in the time period rejected the apocrypha and claimed that they were spurious, such leaders as Origen and Jerome. The mentioned Syriac Church waited until the fourth century A. D. to officially accept the apocrypha. It is significant that the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible of the second century A. D., did not contain them. The Jewish community, in the main, rejected the apocrypha as seen by the fact that the Council of Jamnia (ca. A. D. 90) recognized the sacred Hebrew canon as we have it today, without the apocrypha. Again, it was not until the Council of Trent that the Catholic Church, the big promoter of the apocrypha today, declared the apocrypha as scripture (1545-1563 A. D.).
One of the main and, I believe, most conclusive arguments against the acceptance of the apocrypha is, again, the fact that not one reference is made to these books by an inspired writer of the New Testament. It is also of interest that the prolific writer and Jewish historian Josephus who also frequently quoted the Hebrews books, did not reference the apocrypha (Josephus lived during the first century).
Beloved, the sixty-six books found in standard translations (such as the King James, American Standard, etc.) have the stamp of antiquity, authenticity, and canonicity. These books have stood the test and scrutiny of time. These books are profitable because they constitute scripture (see 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17). While the apocrypha is of help in providing some historic information during the time called the 'the period between the Testaments,' (ca. 400 B. C. - 01 A. D), these books are not inspired and should not be considered part of the sacred text, the Bible. (Be sure to study the material in Bible Truths regarding the inception and production of the Bible. Go to the Archives page, click on the below 'back' hyperlink, and click on 'The Bible' in the Subject Index box.) (For more study and information, please see, 'An Exchange on the Apocrypha')
