Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.
At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic.
TobitWhy the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:
"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
Basilicon Doron, page 13
"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition--the church of England published the Authorized (King James) Version) states that the Old and New Testaments are the Bible and the apocrypha is not:
In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...Now concerning the apocrypha it states,
And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James authorized the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.
Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
There are other spurious books.
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, there may be some information in them that parallels the Masoretic Text, but there are fables in them too. I went to see the scrolls a few years ago with great expectation but found a bunch of fables. The best defense against error in any form (fake Bibles and religions) is a solid knowledge of your King James Bible. If you read it, forgeries become readily apparent.
Bibliography:Translators Revived, Alexander McClure, p. 142
Bible Believing Study, Edward F. Hills, p. 15
The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, p. 96, 97, 98
God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray, p. 90
An Understandable History of the Bible, Dr. Samuel Gipp, p. 245