This paper will address the issue of the so called Apocrypha, or “Lost Books of Bible.” We will look at their content, their validity, and their right to be included in the Bible as God inspired Scripture.

But before we discuss the so-called missing books of the Bible, first let us clarify some definitions and concepts of the Bible itself. Our discussion will deal only with the Old Testament books because the books of the Apocrypha were written after the last books of the Old Testament and before the time of Christ. They would be considered then an extension of the Old Testament; so the OT will be our main focus.

The first thing I should point out is that the Lost Books of the Bible are not lost at all. In fact, they’ve been around for roughly 2000 years. We still have the texts and the manuscripts to study. The books just haven’t been included as scripture among some churches. Protestants in general don’t include these books as their ‘official’ scriptures. When ideas, concepts, or scripture are part of a church’s doctrine, that doctrine is referred to as its canon. So when we talk about the Apocrypha’s canonicity, we are talking about whether these books are scripture, i.e. the inspired Word of God.

So now that we know that these books are not lost to us, let’s start out with describing these books. The Apocrypha is a collection of ancient Hebrew manuscripts, which were written between the time of the Old Testament books and the books of the New Testament (200BC to 100AD respectively). They are sometimes referred to as the Dueterocanonical books. The word Apocrypha is a Greek word comes from the Greek word apokryphos, which means ‘hidden’.

When we refer to the Apocrypha in this discussion, we are referring to our definition. It’s important to note that this definition isn’t universally accepted. When Catholic theologians speak of it they are referring to something completely different. Which would make sense, because the Apocrypha is included in their canon, or in their Bible.

There are other ancient texts and manuscripts that exist that have been under consideration for being scripture. These books are called the Pseudepigraphia. They are not accepted as scripture by either the Protestant Church or the Catholic Church. However, because the word Apocrypha is generally associated with rejected books that don’t make it into the Bible, Catholics refer to the Pseudepigraphia as the Apocrypha. So if you were to ask a Protestant and a Catholic what the Apocrypha was, you would get two different answers. We will not deal with the Pseudepigraphia because it is universally rejected as scripture. So when we refer to the Apocrypha, we do in fact refer to the books written between the Old Testament and the New, which is the Protestant definition.

So now we have a definition of what the Apocrypha is. We still need to explain some basic definitions before we get started so we know what we are talking about. First off, the Christian Old Testament contains 39 books and is the same as the Hebrew or Jewish Old Testament. The original Bible, written in Hebrew, is referred to as the Masoretic texts. The Hebrew Old Testament is referred to as the Tanach (or Tanakh). The Hebrew Old Testament contains 24 books. Why the discrepancy? The difference is due to the doubling up of books such as 1^st and 2^nd Samuel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and the 12 Minor Prophets being rendered as one long book. The content of the Christian and Hebrew Old Testaments are the same; they only differ in the number of books.

Now that we have some basic definitions, let’s focus on the main question. The controversy is centered on whether the books of the Apocrypha are the inspired Word of God or not. That is the big question: Is the Apocrypha scripture? We will delve into this question for the rest of this discussion.

The argument for the canonicity (or being able to be Scripture) of the Apocrypha is centered on two arguments. One, if the Apocrypha fulfills what is required of texts to be Scripture, and two, arguments focused on historical facts. The first argument focuses on whether books of the Apocrypha have what it takes to be the inspired Word of God. If something written is the Inspired Word of God it should be able to pass certain types of tests. The second argument says that if the Apocrypha was considered scripture at the time of Christ then it must be considered scripture now. The second argument outweighs any conclusions we might find about the first. Because no matter what we say about the Apocrypha, if is was considered scripture, then nothing we say or do will change that. But we will still look at the first argument because we would expect it to agree with what we concluded about the second argument. Let’s dive into the first one.

If something written was condoned as scripture, we would expect certain things about it. One thing we would expect would be that scriptures written after a text would reference it. If an Jesus, an apostle or a prophet were to refer to a text as a source of doctrine, we’d probably take a good look as to considering that text as scripture. Let’s apply this lens of logic to the Apocrypha. We find that in no place – not one – were Jesus or the Apostles ever found quoting from it. And there are 15 of them. Jesus and the Apostles quote hundreds of times from all parts of the Old Testament. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture - even though they were aware of these writings and alluded to them at times (e.g., Heb.11:35 may allude to 2 Maccabees 7, 12, though this may be a reference to the canonical book of Kings; see I Kings 17:22). But just to re-emphasize, there are hundreds of quotations in the New Testament citing the Old Testament canon. The authority with which they are cited shows that the New

Testament writers believed them to be part of the “Law and Prophets” – which in the time of the day meant whole Old Testament. And it was believed to be the inspired and infallible Word of God (Matt. 5:17-18; cf. John 10:35). Jesus quoted from throughout the Old Testament, referred to as the “Law and Prophets,” and which were “all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27).

Something to notice would be that the Old Testament is referred to in two divisions – the Law and the Prophets. Some believe this division was based on whether the author was a prophet by office or by gift. Others believe the separation was for topical use at Jewish festivals, or that books were arranged chronologically in descending order of size. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the original (cf. 7:12) and continual way to refer to the entire Old Testament up to the time of Christ was the twofold division of the “The Law and The Prophets.” They were also referred to as the “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:5) in the New Testament. The Law referred to something called the Pentateuch, which are the 1^st five books of the Bible. The rest are referred to as “The Prophets”. In other words, the Bible was either written by prophets, or had prophetic word.

In determining the canonicity of the Apocrypha, we need to see if either it has prophetic writings or if prophets wrote it. But, how do we determine if who is a prophet and who isn’t?

There were a number of ways for people of the Bible to confirm whether someone was a prophet of God. Some were confirmed supernaturally (Exodus 3-1; Acts 2:22; 2Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-1). Sometimes this came as immediate confirmation of their authority. Other times confirmation came by the accuracy of their prophecy. Indeed, false prophets were weeded out if their predictions did not come true (Deut. 18:20-22). Alleged revelations that contradicted previously revealed truths were rejected also (Deut. 13:1-3).

Another way to determine if someone was a prophet was to see if his contemporaries added his books to a growing canon or if they quote him in subsequent writings. Moses’ writings are cited throughout the Old Testament, beginning with his immediate successor, Joshua. It is seen throughout the Bible that later prophets cite earlier ones. In the New Testament, Paul cites Luke; Peter recognizes Paul’s Epistles, and Jude cites 2 Peter. The Revelation is filled with images and ideas from previous Scripture, especially Daniel (see, for example, Revelation 13).

We can see that the entire Jewish/Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. However, this cannot be said for the books of the Apocrypha.

There is strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic, and since this is a test for canonicity, this fact alone eliminates them from being considered scripture. No of the books of the Apocrypha claim to be written by a prophet. Indeed, Maccabees disclaims being prophetic (1 Macc. 9:27). Nor is there supernatural confirmation of any of the writers of the apocryphal books, as there is for prophets who wrote canonical books. There is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, as there is in some canonical books (e.g., Isaiah 53; Daniel 9; Micah 5:2). There is no new Messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Even the Jewish community, whose books these were, acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written. Apocryphal books were never listed in the Jewish Bible with the Prophets or in any other section. Not once is an apocryphal book cited authoritatively by a prophetic book that was written after it. Taken together all of this provides overwhelming evidence that the Apocrypha was not prophetic and, therefore, should not be part of the canon of Scripture.

That sums up the first argument. We see that the Apocrypha can’t pass the tests required to authentic Scripture. But now we go to the historical argument. Was the Apocrypha considered to be the Word of God when Christ was alive? Did Jesus and the Apostles also mean the Apocrypha when they referred to the Word of God?

Well, since this is a historical argument, we must look into the history of the origin of the Bible. And since we are talking about the Apocrypha, we must look into its history. The history of the Apocrypha can be traced through the origin of the Catholic Bible (since it is included in it). So let us examine it.

We will have to start at the very beginning - at the time of Christ. As the centuries after the resurrection unfolded, the dominant language spoken in the Roman Empire began to change. Greek, the international language of the time was no longer dominant. Because of this, in 382AD, Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome (c. 347-420) to translate the Bible into Latin, a task that took him twenty years to complete. This Bible came to be known as the versio vulgata (common translation) or Vulgata editio (the current text of Holy Scripture) and became the standard for the entire Western Church. In English, we call this Bible the Latin Vulgate. 

(Historical Note: the Vulgate we know today was not done entirely by Jerome. He only finished translating the Old Testament before he died. The Vulgate based on a compilation of sources, including Jerome.)

The first translations of the Bible into English came from the Vulgate instead of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The reason for this is because the Catholic Church considered the Vulgate equal or superior to the original texts themselves. Which is another entire discussion - but let us stay on point.

Jerome based his Latin translations of the Bible on Greek texts of an early Christian named Origen 185-284AD). Though Origen could speak Greek, he was also a scholar of the Hebrew language. The Greek texts that Jerome had read were Origen’s revision of an even earlier Greek document called the Septuagint. Origen, wanting make sure the Greek Septuagint accurately reflected the original Hebrew texts, retranslated them. These were Origen’s revisions. He called his revisions the Hexapla because it contained 6 translations of the Old Testament divided into columns, which included his own revision of Septuagint. 

The original Septuagint (from the Latin word septuaginta meaning 70) that Origen had revised was a Greek version of the Old Testament thought to have been created during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (or Ptolemy II ca. 285-246 BCE) in Alexandria, Egypt for the Jews spread across Africa, Asia and Europe. Most of Jews living outside of Palestine were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great\'s campaign to Hellenize his empire.

We do not have the original Septuagint. We only have a copy of a copy – Origen’s revision of it. We find though, that the Greek in Origen’s revised Septuagint reflects an Alexandrian (Alexandria, Egypt) origin. So the writers were probably Alexandrian instead of Palestinian. The origin of the original Septuagint remains a mystery and cannot be stated for certain. However, the most accepted origin of original Septuagint arises from an ancient writer named Aristeas.

Scholars believe Aristeas was a Hellenistic Jew who lived around mid-second century BC. He claimed that Ptolemy Philadelpus who ruled Egypt had sent a delegation to Jerusalem for six men of each tribe (there are 12 tribes, so hence 72 men) to make a Greek translation of the Bible for the Library at Alexandria. According to this story, each man was put into a separate room and each set about translating the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible). They finished the translation in 72 days and when done, each man’s translation was identical; word for word. This story was considered evidence by some early Christian scholars and the Catholic Church that the Septuagint was divinely inspired.

(Historical Note: The reason the Septuagint is named as it is – meaning 70 - is assumed to be the number 72 rounded off.)

However, we notice that these dates point to a time before Christ. This means that the Septuagint was written before Christ came and was around at the time of Christ. Some early Christians used it as scripture because it was the most convenient because it was written in Greek. Was the Septuagint around at the time of Christ? If it was, was it considered to be Scripture? This is what the entire argument centers on because the Septuagint, translated from the Masoretic texts, included the books of the Apocrypha.

We find though, that almost all historical evidence seems to show that the Septuagint was written after the time of Christ. If it was written after the time of Christ, then Christ and the Apostles could never have referred to it as Scripture. And the same goes for the Apocrypha, since it is part of the Septuagint. 

The whole argument that says that the Septuagint existed at the time of Christ rests on this one story by Aristeas. No other evidence points to a pre-Christ time period for the Septuagint. All evidence to the contrary of this notion refers to this sole story told in a document called the Letter of Aristeas.

In the Letter of Aristeas, Aristeas claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus\' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes as far as to give the names of the Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. The supposed librarian Demetrius of Phalerum (ca.345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus. The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death. The writer must be lying about his identity. There is other evidence that this letter is from a different time period - and thus proved a fake.

If this letter is a fake, then the Septuagint has no other foundation by which to claim it existed in a pre-Christ era. We must then fall back to all our other evidence – which indicates a post-Christ time period. This means that Christ and the Apostles never referred to the Septuagint, and hence the Apocrypha, as Scripture. The biblical books in the Septuagint are by no means false and should not be discarded. It is only the extra books - the Apocrypha - we must discard. We cannot argue that because Jesus and the Apostles quote the Septuagint, then the Apocrypha must be true - because He couldn’t have quoted it.

Some history books might tell you however that the Jews at the time of Christ had lost most of their language. Scholars have believed that the Jews were hardly able to speak Hebrew anymore, let alone read it, so they resorted to the international language of the time; Greek. This is another argument posed for the Septuagint being the texts Jesus and the Apostles referred to. Because they might have been speaking Greek at the time, it would only make sense that they use a Greek Bible – the Septuagint. 

However, refutation of this argument can be found in the words of Christ himself. Jesus says that neither “one jot nor one tittle” would pass away from the law “until all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18). The jot was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the tittle was a tiny projection on certain Hebrew characters. If the Septuagint were considered to be the accepted Word of God at the time, then what Jesus said would not make any sense since the Septuagint was written in Greek.

Also Jesus refers to the order of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew 23:35 Jesus says, “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah…” In this verse, Jesus references the first and last righteous servant of God recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Tanach (Hebrew Old Testament) is ordered differently than the Christian Old Testament. The Christian OT starts with Genesis and ends with Malachi. However, the Tanach is in chronological order and starts with Genesis and ends with 2^nd Chronicles. Abel is killed in Genesis and Zechariah is killed in 2^nd Chronicles. Jesus is thus referring to all righteous blood shed since the beginning of humanity. This would not make sense if Jesus were quoting from the Septuagint - because it is ordered differently than the Tanach is.

Thus, the Septuagint was not around during the time or Christ. Even if it was, the words of Christ show that it was not referred to as Scripture. Thus, the Apocrypha, which was part of the Septuagint, cannot be argued with this argument to be Scripture either.

The books of the Apocrypha have no basis by which to claim canonicity. They do not pass the test of authentic scripture, and we cannot use history to argue for their validity. Not only is this the case, but in some instances, the Apocrypha comes into complete contradiction to the rest of the Bible. Just to point out one simple discrepancy in the Apocryphal book of Tobit:

In Tobit 12:9 one reads, “For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin . . .” This is obviously a result of the influence of the Jewish sect the Pharisees.  It also would later show up in Catholicism.  There is NO WAY that one can buy remission of sins.  Remission of sins comes only when one is covered by the blood of Christ.  In the Old Testament this was afforded by offering animal sacrifices, not by buying ones way out of sin.  

The Apocrypha is a good source for historical information and insight into the times before Christ lived and the Jewish culture of the time. They are reliable documents for the most part and can be called upon as a reference to as texts from their time. However they cannot be regarded as Scripture, as the infallible Word of God. The original 39 books, and none else, are the perfect, incorruptible, holy Word, sent from God to man.