The Apocrypha in the 1611 King James and Its Use

The 1611 King James Version did indeed include a section of books commonly called the Apocrypha. However, these books were never placed within the Old or New Testament proper. The KJV had three distinct parts in order: (1) the Old Testament, (2) the Apocrypha, and (3) the New Testament.

The Apocrypha in the 1611 contained fourteen books (with some material grouped under larger headings), such as 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Status of the Apocrypha in Historic Protestantism

The KJV translators did not treat these books as canonical Scripture. Their own ecclesial context, the Church of England, had already clarified this in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563), specifically Article VI, "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation."

That article:

• Explicitly defines "Holy Scripture" as the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.
• Lists those canonical books by name.
• Then distinguishes "the other books," which "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

In other words, the Apocrypha was considered useful and edifying reading in certain respects, but not part of the rule of faith and not a source for doctrinal proof.

The KJV translators’ preface, "The Translators to the Reader," focuses on translating the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament as the authoritative fountainheads. The Apocrypha is physically included between the Testaments, but set apart as a separate collection.

Why Later Protestant Editions Omitted Them

Later Protestant printings often removed the Apocrypha entirely from standard Bibles. This was not because the books had newly become "heretical," but because:

• The Protestant principle of sola Scriptura led to sharper concern about confusing non-canonical material with canonical Scripture.
• As printing and distribution costs were considered, non-essential material was more easily omitted.
• There was a desire to avoid any suggestion that these books carried equal authority with the sixty-six canonical books.

So, yes, Protestants were responsible for the common practice of printing the KJV without the Apocrypha, but their stated reasoning was that the Apocrypha was non-canonical, not that it was useless or dangerous per se.

How the Apocrypha Can Be Used Profitably

The Apocrypha contains significant historical and cultural information, especially about the intertestamental period—the era between Malachi and Matthew. Many features that appear in the New Testament but not in the Old (synagogues, rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees, the Hasmonean dynasty, the Maccabean revolt, and the transition from Persian to Greek and then Roman rule) are illuminated by intertestamental literature, including the Apocrypha.

In that sense, the Apocrypha can be read:

• For history: e.g., 1 and 2 Maccabees are valuable sources for the Maccabean revolt and Hasmonean rule.
• For customs and manners: to understand Jewish life, practices, and thought-forms in the centuries before Christ.
• For background: to help bridge the historical and religious context from the Old Testament to the New.

It can function somewhat like reading Josephus, Philo, or trustworthy historical works: helpful for context, never authoritative for doctrine.

Do Any Traditions Treat the Apocrypha as Canon?

The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546) declared most of what Protestants call the Apocrypha to be canonical for their communion (they use the term "deuterocanonical"), though not all of the books found in the 1611 KJV Apocrypha were accepted. Certain Eastern Orthodox churches also regard additional books as canonical.

However, even where such status is claimed, it is still necessary to ask in practice how much doctrine is actually built upon those books alone. Historically, the main Protestant concern has been precisely that: doctrine should not be established from writings that were not part of the Hebrew canon or apostolic New Testament.

Why We Commonly Do Not Study Them

In much of modern Protestantism, the Apocrypha has been:

• Ignored out of fear of confusion with Scripture.
• Dismissed as irrelevant or "Catholic," rather than evaluated as historically valuable literature.
• Overreacted against, in part because of polemics with Roman Catholicism.

This has led to what might be called an excessive dismissal. A more balanced approach would be:

• Affirm without compromise that the canon consists of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
• Refuse to build doctrine or articles of faith from the Apocrypha.
• Yet allow the Apocrypha to be read as historical and cultural background material that can illuminate the world into which the New Testament came.

Mature believers should be able to read such material discerningly, "chewing the meat and spitting out the bones," just as they do with any non-inspired commentary, historical work, or theological book.

Therefore, you have not been entirely misled: Protestants did print later KJV editions without the Apocrypha, and they do not treat it as Scripture. But the earlier inclusion of these books in 1611 did not mean they were ever considered part of the Old or New Testament canon; they were provided as useful, non-canonical reading. Properly understood, they can still serve that limited but worthwhile role.

newpage