In the year 1611, the King James Bible contained a total of 80 books. In 1885, 14 of those books were removed from the King James Version. So, why were those books removed from the Bible? The answer to that question lies in a controversy that is about 2,000 years old. The controversy still is ongoing with protestants maintaining there are 66 divinely inspired books, Catholics maintaining there are 73 inspired books and Eastern Orthodox maintaining there are 81 inspired books.
So, what exactly are the books that have been taken out of the Bible? I will list them and give a brief summary of them. These books are often referred to as the Deuterocanonical books by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and are called the Apocrypha by Protestant churches. I will be primarily referring to them as the Apocrypha because it is shorter and because I am a Protestant. There are not only additional books in the Apocrypha, but also additional chapters to books like Psalms, Daniel and Esther.
There is only one additional Psalm in the Apocrypha. That additional Pslam is only in the Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha. Pslam 151 is purported to be written by King David and pretty much just recounts what can be found in 1 Samuel 16–17 about David’s origins and his battle with Goliath. Catholics and Protestants agree that Psalm 151 is not inspired scripture, but the Eastern Orthodox traditions do consider it scripture.
In the Apocrypha, there is a book that is purported to be written by Solomon. The book is called Wisdom of Solomon. However, most scholars place the date of composition during the first century B.C. One reason for this date is that there are a lot of parallels between the Wisdom of Solomon and the philosophy of Middle Platonism which formed during the first century B.C.
The book of Tobit is about a righteous Israelite who was carried away to Nineveh during the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He and his family face many trials during their time in exile. One trail that they face, is they are being plagued by a demon named Asmodeus. An angel by the name of Raphael helps this family out and gives them information that leads to the defeat of the demon that has been plaguing them.
The prayer of Manasseh is a work that is ascribed to King Manasseh. King Manasseh was the wicked king of Judah mentioned in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles informs us that King Manasseh repents when he is taken captive by the Assyrians. The prayer of Manasseh is allegedly King Manasseh’s prayer of repentance. Much like Psalm 151, both Protestants and Catholics agree that the prayer is not inspired Scripture. However, the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity does consider it inspired scripture.
The book of Baruch is ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch. This book contains similar themes found both in the prophetic literature of the Bible and in the poetic literature of the Bible. Baruch contains a prayer of confession and contains exhortation to be obedient to God’s law.
The Book of Judith is about a godly widow who ends up killing an Assyrian general. One interesting aspect of Judith is that the book claims that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Nineveh. However, Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon and not Nineveh. This fact is often pointed out by Protestants to discredit Judith because Judith is in the Catholic Bible. In response, Catholics point out that something like a scribble error could explain the error and they also point out that the protestant argument sounds very similar to those that atheists and skeptics level against the Bible.
Much like the additional Psalm, there are also additions to the story of Daniel in the apocryphal literature. The story of Susana is contained in this extended edition of Daniel. In this story, Daniel saves a Jewish lady from being falsely accused of adultery. Also in the extended version of Daniel, there is the prayer of Azeriah that purports to contain the prayer of Azeriah when he is in the fiery furnace. Lastly, in the extended addition, there is the story of Bel and the story of the Dragon. In the story of Bel, Daniel exposes the pagan priests of Bel as deceivers who are purposely deceiving the king of Babylon into thinking that Bel is actually eating the food offerings. In the story of the Dragon, Daniel becomes a dragon slayer and kills a dragon by feeding it a concoction that causes the dragon to explode.
There is also an extended version of Esther in the Apocrypha. Most scholars believe this extended version was created because the original version of Esther does not mention God once. Scholars are in agreement that the extended version of Esther was written when Judea was under heavy Greek influence. The original Esther has Haman being an Agagite, while the extended edition has Haman being a Macedonian.
1 and 2 Maccabees is a historical work about the Maccabean Revolt when faithful Jews in Judea were experiencing persecution under the Antiochus Epiphanes. It records how the Jews fought back against the atrocities of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Lastly, there is the Book of Sirach, which was written by Joshua ben Sirach who was a Jewish sage living in the 2nd century B.C. In this book, Sirach imparts his wisdom to his readers.
While the status of these books differs among Christian traditions, these books were written by Jews before the birth of Christianity, so the question becomes what do Jewish communities think of these books? In modern Jewish communities, these books are not seen as scripture. The books that are seen as inspired by God in the modern Jewish community are identical to the protestant Old Testament. What about Judaism closer to the time of Christ? Well, Josephus, a Jewish-Roman historian who wrote during the late first century and early second century clearly had an opinion.
“ For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.”- Josephus, Against Apion 1:8
Now, you may be asking yourself why Josephus mentions 22 books when the Protestant Old Testament has 39 books? Andrew Judd from The Gospel Coalition Australia has a good explanation.
“In the English the Minor Prophets are counted as an anthology of twelve individual books, whereas in the Hebrew Bible they’re counted as one book in twelve parts. Likewise, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1 & 2 Chronicles are single books in the Hebrew but divided into two books in English versions. Plus, sometimes Ruth gets appended to Judges, and Lamentations goes on the end of Jeremiah. All that brings the total for the English Bible from 22 up to 39: they’re the same books, just counted differently.”
So, it would seem that by the end of the first century A.D./ beginning of the second century A.D. Jewish communities believed that only 22 books were divinely inspired. Of course, we have to remember, that during the days of Jesus and the apostles, before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. There was a faction of Jews known as the Sadducees who believed only the five books of Moses were divinely inspired. So, certainly, during the time of Christ, there was a certain element of debate in Judaism on what books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. However, there is no concrete evidence of any Jewish group that held to the divine inspiration of say Judith or Maccabees. While we have found apocryphal works in Essene communities like in the caves of Qumran, we simply don’t know whether the Essenes viewed them as simply good historical reads or as divine scripture. We have found non-inspired works such as commentaries on scripture in the caves of Qumran, so the fact that we have found the book of Tobit in the caves of Qumran doesn’t necessarily mean that the Essenes viewed the books in question as inspired.
So, how did the status of these books develop in Christian communities? One of the earliest definitive statements concerning what pre-Christian Jewish writings are considered inspired by Christians comes from a Christian Bishop from Sardis named Mileto around 170 AD. His writing is preserved in the works of Eusebius.
“When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kingdom, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.”1. — Eusebius EH4.26.13–14
The four books of the Kingdom are the books of Samuel and Kings and the reference to the twelve are the minor prophets starting with Hosea and ending with Malachi. So, the Bishop of Mileto gives us a list that is pretty identical to what modern Protestants have as the Old Testament. However, a contemporary of Mileto, Irenaeus, who was the bishop of Lyon does actually quote from the extended edition of Daniel and does seem to list the book of Tobias as an inspired work. Other notable Christian leaders and thinkers throughout the first few centuries, such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian quote from the apocryphal works and appear to consider them inspired by God. However, the notable Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 A.D. in his 39th festival letter, clearly left out the vast majority of the apocryphal works from divinely inspired scripture.
“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.”-Athanasius,39th festival letter
Athanasius’ list is almost identical to what modern Protestants have in their Bible, with the exception that he includes Baruch and Jeremiah’s epistle in the book of Jeremiah. So, it would appear that throughout the first few hundred years of Christian history, there was a difference of opinion on what books should be included in the Old Tenement.
Probably one of the most defining moments for this issue is the disagreement between Jerome, a Christian priest who produced the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, and the extremely influential Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo. Augustine was not exactly thrilled about Jerome’s method of translation. In a letter to Jerome, Augustine warned there could be negative consequences if he proceeded with his translation work.
“For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong?”- Letters of Augustine, 71
Jerome, in his introduction to Samuel and Kings, clearly finds certain books of the Apocrypha as not being sacred scripture.
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a ‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”Jerome — Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings
In contrast, Augustine in his work On Christian Doctrine clearly does think that the Apocrypha is inspired scripture.
“Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: — Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.”- Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Book II, chapter 8.
In terms of the accepted books, Augustine’s view prevailed. In terms of Jerome’s translation, that became the standard translation for the Western Church for more than a thousand years. While Augustine’s view prevailed, some notable individuals differed with Augustine’s view during the Middle Ages. For instance, Hugh of Saint Victor, who lived during the 11th century AD, seemed to downplay the importance of the Apocryphal books in the church in his work On the Sacrament.
“There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in the church] but are not inscribed in the body of the text or in the canon of authority: such are the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.”-Hugh of Saint Victor,On the Sacraments, I, Prologue, 7.
In fact, the apocryphal books did not become official Roman Catholic doctrine until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The reason for the Council of Trent was of course a reaction to the Protestant Reformation and since the Protestant Reformers attacked the Roman Catholic Church for getting doctrine from non-inspired books, the issue of the apocrypha needed to be dealt with at the Council of Trent. Fast forward to the modern day and this issue of the apocrypha is still an issue that divides Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This is why, in Protestant versions of the Bible, such as the King James Version, you will no longer find the Apocrypha.
So, now the question becomes who is right? With clearly conflicting views throughout church history, who is right? Two things convince me that God has spoken to humanity. In the previous articles I have written, I have written about one of those things, namely the Bible’s ability to predict specific historical events before they happen. The other thing that convinces me that God has spoken to humanity is the person of Jesus Christ. I believe that there is good evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and in the next several articles, I will be going over the evidence that Jesus is indeed who he claimed to be. However, for right now, since the debate on these disputed books is often between groups that agree on who Jesus is and that his teaching is authoritative I am going to be looking at the words of Jesus and see if there is any indication of what position he took. Probably the best indication of where Jesus stood on this subject is Matthew 23:35.
Matthew 23:35 “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”
I would argue that this passage shows that Jesus held to a similar view of what was discussed in Josephus. It is clear that Abel is from the book of Genesis which constitutes the first book of the Bible, both in Judaism and in Christianity. Now, Zechariah, Son of Berechia, is a bit more controversial on where that can be found in the Bible. The best match we have for this event is in 2 Chronicles 24:20–21.
2 Chronicles 24:20. “Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, ‘Thus says God: ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He also has forsaken you.’ 21 So they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the LORD.”
The major problem with linking these two accounts together is that there is a discrepancy between Jesus in Matthew identifying the Zachariah in question as the “son of Berechiah,” and the account in 2 Chronicles identifying “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada”. There are different purposed solutions. One solution is that the “son of Berechiah” is an addition by a later scribe, who got it confused with Zachariah, son of Berechiah, the author of the Book of Zachariah. Another solution is that Zechariah, in 2 Chronicles 24 and Matthew 23 are the same person, but one account lists the father, and the other lists his grandfather since there is no ancient Hebrew word for grandfather. Another solution is that Jesus is referring to Zachariah, son of Berechiah, the author of the book of Zachariah. We, however, do not have a record of how he died. Another solution is that it is another Zechariah that was only well known to first-century Jews in Palestine.
Personally, I take the view, that most likely “the son of Berechia” was a later scribal addition to the text and was not found in the original text of Matthew. Although the vast majority of manuscripts have “the son of Berechiah” in Matthew, the Sinaticus manuscript does not. Also, the parallel passage from the Gospel of Luke does not have “the Son of Berechiah” either.
Luke 11:51“from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.”
I think the solution of a scribal error, is the only one that has some tangible evidence behind it, so that is the solution I am going to go with. Going with that solution then, the most plausible scenario is that Jesus is referring to the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles.1. Which means that Jesus held to a more pharisaic/rabbinic understanding of the books of scripture and their placement. Among the pharisaic/rabbinic understanding, there were three divisions of scripture. Those three divisions are The Law of Moses, The Prophets and the Writings. Chronicles would have been included in the last division of the writings. In Luke 24:44 Jesus seems to affirm the three divisions of scripture
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
The Psalms seems to be another name for the third division since the Psalms were found in the Writings section. Since Chronicles comes at the end of this three-fold division of scripture. What Jesus is saying, is that his generation will be held responsible for the very first martyr in scripture to the very last martyr mentioned in the Bible. This indicates that Jesus accepted the view of scripture that the Pharisees had and that view became the view of modern-day rabbinic Judaism. Given what we looked at earlier, with how there is no evidence that any Jewish community saw the apocryphal books as inspired and given how Jesus seems to affirm the more pharisaic/rabbinic ordering of the books, it is highly unlikely that Jesus viewed books like Tobit or Judith as inspired by God. The books that Jesus viewed as divinely inspired are the same as modern-day Judaism. In my next article, I will be looking at the question, did Jesus exist? According to some skeptics on the internet, He did not. We will be addressing that subject next time.
