Yes.
There’s your answer. But admittedly, my viewpoint shifted somewhat as I wrote this article.
The church at large is often pressed for time when it comes to teaching the bible. Your average pastor in the US gets an hour a week to speak before his congregation starts getting antsy. And in that period, it’s rare for a pastor to cover even half of a chapter. With that said, in America, as is probably the case in most other places, it isn’t uncommon for pastors to spend 15 years going through the bible, if they’re one of the rare churches that goes all the way through the bible in the first place. 15 years. To me, it seems this pace is partly dictated by the teachers and partly, probably a bigger partly, by their flock.
That said, I’m not trying to be harsh, just honest. There are still people who have learned and know a lot, much more than I know, in most churches, people who have a thirst for the Word. You’ll generally find them at late night bible studies further developing their faith and talking with, sometimes even debating, other Christians about the nuances of scripture. But even in these more dedicated groups, you’ll notice that if you bring up the book of Jubilees, Baruch, or Enoch you’ll often be met with the Christian poker face. And this expression says a lot.
The Christian poker face says, “I’m curious about what you just said, but I don’t know if I’m allowed to be. You might even be in a state of apostasy for mentioning that book, but I’m not really sure…”
The wild thing is these unmentionable books purport to answer lots of common questions and curiosities in the faith, or at very least advance the topics. And as far as I can tell, most Christians avoid them simply because they’re already low on time, the books are seldom mentioned in Christian churches, and avoiding study outside of the generally accepted cannon is safe.
For everybody else, the question we need to address is are the books of the apocrypha inspired by God?
And again, I am not the foremost historian or theologian on any of these topics, by a huge margin, but by searching out various disputed doctrines and diving into their history I have seen my share of flaws in the religion (not to be confused with what’s actually written in the bible, mind you). Though, as is usually the case in these studies, it’s reassuring that my faith in the authenticity of the bible has only increased by looking deeper.
As a side note: we won’t get too hung up on the definition of “inspired” here. We’re running with the assumption that the work in the canonized Christian/non-Catholic Bible is inspired, miraculous, the ultimate truth, however you want to say it. We just want to know if there is more of it and if it has been changed…
A common answer given by clever Christians to the question, are the books of the Apocrypha inspired (by God), is “no, but they can still give us insight into the rest of the bible.” However, when you press these folks about this issue, most of the time you will be brushed off with a half-hearted “the bible hasn’t changed… I think we have the full council of God in the cannon of scripture.” Or that’s going to be the gist of the response before they want to change the subject. And that’s fair, I think?
But this begs another question: if only the canonized scripture is inspired, which cannon of scripture is inspired? And maybe more importantly, why?
“Well, Nate, for one, the KJV (the King James Bible) is inspired, obviously.”
Is it? If so, which one? The original “Authenticated Version” of the KJV contained the apocrypha. It was “set aside for reading.”
Page leaf out of a King James Bible from the 1600's
“Alright, I’ll bite… Who set the apocrypha aside for reading?”
Martin Luther (1483-1546) did. Ok, maybe not directly. The KJV was originally published in 1611¹. But Luther was without a doubt a heavy influence on both the writers of the KJV and many other writers of the reformation period. In Martin Luther’s translation of the bible, he placed the Apocrypha, a term coined by St. Jerome in the 3rd century, between the Old and New Testament and noted that these books were “not held equal to the scriptures, but are good and useful to read.”² This guy sounds like most modern Christians, it turns out.
Great.
So, Martin Luther’s work was inspired? Oh, it’s not? He just translated the bible into German, shifted some books around, and added cliff notes? Ok… If that’s the case, his cliff notes were inspired, right? I guess you aren’t really supposed to add to scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Revelation 22:18, etc.), so probably not there either… Alright… How was the rest of his doctrine?
No, I’m not talking about that doctrine!³ That teaching is a borderline cliché at this point. What I’m talking about is the fact that he wanted to lower a handful of other canonized books below “the scriptures.” Had Martin Luther had his way you probably wouldn’t have the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, or Revelation in your “normal,” modern Bible. They were not counted amongst his “true and certain chief books.”⁴
Now, don’t get religious on me. I’m not trying to say Martin Luther didn’t advance the faith. He undoubtedly did. I am saying he changed the Bible of his time to some degree.
Everybody calm down! I’m also not saying he changed the core of the message, or even that the adjustments weren’t positive – But his perspective influenced his translation, and his translation influenced many of our translations today. That seems clear… and unavoidable. To put it more fairly, maybe we say Luther’s work is good and useful to read, but is not equal to the scriptures. We come to this conclusion because Mr. Luther was born 1500 years after Jesus, and his work doesn’t 100% match up with what we read today.
As this is an article not a book, I honestly think it’s safe to move past these points without diving too far into individual examples of inconsistencies, considering they are generally minor. Other, more relevant, questions come up naturally from here, and they still need to be answered.
What source was Martin Luther translating from?
Martin Luther’s sources seem to have been very good. For the New Testament, he largely translated Erasmus’ second edition while imprisoned (protected) in Warburg castle.⁵ This period is extremely important when it comes to biblical history, but we’re also creating our own uninspired cliff notes here… So, quickly: Martin Luther was imprisoned because the Catholic church formed the Council of Trent, and he did not believe they were doing the bible any services. This council was meant to counter the reformation movement and advance Catholic teachings like mass, veneration of saints, the sacraments, the secondary divinity of the pope, etc. In response, Martin Luther released a work called the 95 Theses which challenged the catholic church directly and biblically. This is where the rubber met the road. The Church excommunicated him and tried to kill him, as any sane group of individuals would. So, Luther hid in Warburg castle and continued his work.
Classic.
Warburg castle today. Source
Since he was Luther’s primary source, let’s shift the focus to this Erasmus character briefly. After Erasmus’ parents died of plague while he was still a child, he was sent to a Latin school. He excelled there and went on to Oxford University around 1500 AD. At Oxford, he ended up reading criticisms of the “Bible” of the time, the Latin Vulgate. And eventually, he felt an entirely new translation needed to be done. He borrowed manuscripts from Basil Library and from Johann Reuchlin.⁶ But of note is the fact that none of the manuscripts he used were from pre-1200 BC…
This dating might initially raise some eyebrows; I was surprised to read about it myself. I’d always just assumed they had older texts. It seems they didn’t. However, thanks to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947 and a handful of other manuscripts, which were older than what Erasmus or Luther had access to by roughly a thousand years, we now have translations that are closer to the source. Reassuringly, these older manuscripts have largely demonstrated that Martin Luther and some of the other reformation translations were accurate.
So, when did the apocrypha first show up, and why was it separated from the cannon as we know it today?
The apocrypha is all Old Testament, as far as timing goes. These books had been around for at least hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ (and much longer, in some cases).
One of the earliest known manuscripts of the complete Christian Bible was put together in the 4th century A.D. It’s called the Codex Sinaiticus.⁷ It’s a Greek work, and it contained some of the apocrypha as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. We don’t know exactly who compiled this manuscript.
The apocrypha was also included in the Codex Vaticanus, a 4th century catholic book, the Codex Sinaiticus, another fourth century work completed by the Roman Catholic Church,⁸ the Peshitta, a Latin codex that likely dates back to the first or second century A.D., and then there was the Latin Vulgate.
The Vatican has released a digital version of the Codex Vaticanus.
The Latin Vulgate was composed in the late third century. It was commissioned by Pope Damasus and written by Saint Jerome with the intent of becoming the common book of the faith.⁹ It included the apocrypha. And it’s still a relevant work today. The New English Translation, The New American Standard Bible, and the New Revised Standard bible all reference the Vulgate for certain important textual issues. Though it should be noted that more modern non-Catholic variants of this work omit the apocrypha entirely, we can reliably say that the Catholic church has followed the apocrypha since its (the church’s) inception. But let’s go back further…
What about the Jews?
We know that the Septuagint, the first Greek version of the Hebrew bible, written around 200 B.C., did contain the apocrypha. So, right there it might be easy to be like, “ok. Everyone was following the apocrypha, then the protestants deleted it. So, obviously this stuff should be in the bible, and maybe the protestants were just off-base.”
That’s the trap I’d almost fallen into.
But after you look at the Septuagint you must also look at the Tanakh. The Tanakh is essentially the original (for lack of a better word) “Old Testament.” It’s more than just the Torah; it contains the Torah (the Law), the Nevi’im (prophets), and the Ketuvim (writings). Our best understanding of this is that it was initially compiled into one book by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah) around 450 B.C. And it does not include the apocrypha.¹⁰ We don’t have a physical copy of the original Tanakh that the Great Assembly produced. However, I tend to believe we can somewhat safely rely on it being much older than the other works we’ve spoken of, based on Jewish tradition.
So, another thing I think we can say is that the apocrypha has always* been an important compilation of at least scripturally adjacent writings. But it doesn’t seem to have been adopted into various cannons until Greek translations began. This, of course, forces us to go to a higher final source to determine the legitimacy of the apocrypha.
What does the bible itself say about the apocrypha?
If you find yourself in circles that uphold the apocryphal books as being inspired by God, you will likely hear that “oh yea, the apocrypha is quoted in the New Testament over and over!” However, this is far from the whole truth. There is not a single quote from the apocrypha in the New Testament which is not also a potential quote from another non-apocryphal book of the Old Testament. That said, there may very well be allusions, unique references, to the apocrypha in the New Testament. A few examples:
From Matthew 23:37 – “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
From the corresponding Apocryphal book: 2 Esdras 1:30 – I gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But now, what shall I do to you? I will cast you out from my presence.
From Hebrews 1:1-3 – God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
From the corresponding Apocryphal book: The Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-26 – For she (wisdom) is a breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.26 For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
(You, apparently, need to dig into the Greek word logos for the versus above to become wholly similar. I didn’t go that far.)
The armor described in The Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-20 is not exactly the same as the armor in Ephesians 6:13-17, however there are notable similarities, namely the breastplate of righteousness.
The theme of angels carrying prayers before God, described in the apocryphal book of Tolbit 12:12 is echoed in Revelation 8:3-4.
You can go further with these examples if you wish. But many of them are a stretch. What’s more interesting to me is the Old Testament references to non-canonical books (many of which we do not have copies of).
The book of the Wars of the Lord is mentioned in Numbers 21:14.
14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon…
The book of Shemiah the Prophet is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15.
15 The acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.
The Acts of Solomon are mentioned in 1 Kings 11:41.
41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
The books of Gad the Seer and Nathan the Prophet are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29.
29 Now the acts of King David, first and last, indeed they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer…
But of the references in the bible to the apocrypha I find this one the most compelling. In Joshua 10:13 not only does Joshua reference the book of Jasher, which we have ancient copies of, he challenges the reader on the authenticity of the source. And Joshua itself is old, like times of Moses old.
13 So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.
Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
All this said, I can see the reason the apocrypha is not considered cannon in many versions of the faith. Not only does this decision seem to mirror the oldest traditions we have, but certain apocryphal books do contradict the bible in places (a lot more could be said on this, but this post is already long). But the book of Jasher appears to have been something Joshua took to be true. And if it’s good enough for Joshua, it’s good enough for me. I’ll refrain from adding “inspired” or “non-inspired” tags to the books of the apocrypha. Instead, I think this is a fair conclusion: If you are a bible reading believer, you should strive to learn at least a brief history of each of the books of the apocrypha and then read them with a degree of reverence.
And if you aren’t satisfied with that conclusion, go read a book or something.
Maybe this book. I don't know; just a totally random suggestion...
Sources: