Christian TraditionsChurch History

Myths of the Apocrypha – Part I

Dear Protestant brothers and sisters, I have seven free gifts for you today! Hopefully you won’t mind my re-gifting them since I received these presents myself a few years ago. They’re not brand new either, but they are divine! I got my seven gifts when I learned that a long-standing idea in Protestantism turned out to be a myth. Philosopher Norman Geisler and other prominent theologians taught me that Roman Catholicism inserted several apocryphal books into their Bibles in the 1600’s at the Council of Trent in response to Martin Luther because those books backed up Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory and prayers for the dead:

“Then, in 1546, just twenty-nine years after Luther posted his famous Ninety-Five Theses, the Council of Trent elevated the Apocrypha, or rather the part of it which supported their position, to the level of inspired Scripture . . .”1

I wholeheartedly believed this claim. Yet I offer you today seven gifts: seven Old Testament books that are tragically missing in Protestant Bibles. All of Christianity including non-Roman Catholics accepted these seven books across the world as divine Scripture long before the Protestant Reformation.

  • Myth #1: Roman Catholics inserted “apocrypha” books into their canon to disprove Martin Luther.
  • Myth #2: Early Christians rejected the “apocrypha” books because those books contained false teachings.
  • Myth #3: Jesus and His apostles never quoted these books in the New Testament.



A terrible thing happened in the fifth century. Christian bishops got in ugly arguments with one another and began dividing themselves politically and geographically. As tragic as it was however, their divisions help us today in correcting myth #1. The division of Christianity politically and geographically ensured that we have four completely independent witnesses about the wider canon of the Old Testament.

The greatest enemy of the ancient Roman Empire was the Persian Empire. When Roman Christians excommunicated a theological hero of Persian Christians in the fifth century, the Persian government was glad to see her Christian subjects alienated from its rival, thereby making them less of a potential threat to Persia. Persian Christians thrived therefore for centuries in Persia, divided from Roman Christians by the borders of their empire, the politics of bishops, and the distance of their geography. They were divided from the West more than 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation. They had no interest in Martin Luther, yet Persian Christians (also known as the Assyrian Church of the East) have these seven additional books in their Bible and consider all seven of them to be holy Scripture.

Shortly after the split between Roman and Persian Christians, Egypt broke ranks with the rest of Roman Christians in AD 451, forming Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, Persia, and India. With no interest in Martin Luther, Oriental Orthodoxy also has these seven books in their Bibles all around the world. They were separated from Roman Christians for over 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation both by politics and in some cases, by vast geographical distance.

Eastern Orthodoxy later divided from Roman Catholicism almost five hundred years prior to the Protestant Reformation. Like the Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy has claimed all seven these books of the Bible as holy and divinely inspired from the early years of Christianity. Rome did not follow the lead of Christians all over the world at the Council of Trent. Rome did not decide to add rejected books to Scripture because of Martin Luther. Like all other Christians in the world, these seven gifts from God had been their Scriptures since the days of the apostles.



Ironically, it was a Roman Christian who first insulted these seven books of Scripture as “apocrypha” more than 1,100 years before the Protestant Reformation and laid the groundwork for their Protestant rejection. Around AD 400, Jerome veered from the Christian norm by learning Hebrew. Christians had always relied on a translation of the Old Testament called the Greek Septuagint, an authoritative translation created by more than seventy Jewish Rabbis beginning in the 3rd century BC.2 

Jerome moved to the Palestine region of the Roman Empire to learn Hebrew under Jewish tutors. His studies enabled him to claim a greater understanding of Old Testament Scripture than any other Christian. He referred often in his writings to the “Hebraica Veritas” or the “Hebrew Truth.” The problem however, was that some Old Testament Scriptures originated in Greek, reducing Jerome’s claim of superiority. Worse yet, Jews were the only ones who had preserved Hebrew manuscripts,3 therefore those books and passages which Jews eventually rejected had not been preserved in Hebrew. Perhaps because of the influence of Jewish teachers, Jerome went so far as to insult these seven books which could not be found in Hebrew as “apocrypha,” the same label that Christians of that era had placed on the heretical writings of Gnosticism.



“Apocrypha” is a Christian dirty word, worse than heck, shucks, and golly combined. It is a grave insult because the real apocrypha are books written by Gnostics, a heretical religion that challenged early Christianity for several hundred years. Gnosticism offered a secret knowledge by which people could realize that they were divine. The most famous Gnostic book is the so-called “Gospel of Thomas,” which was written long after the New Testament and was consistently rejected by the “apostolic bishops.”

Many professing Christians fell into Gnosticism. The early safeguard against Gnosticism however, was the line of “apostolic bishops.” Jesus appointed apostles who bishops who in turn appointed other bishops, etcetera. Those bishops who could trace their appointments directly to the apostles were “apostolic bishops,” and the apostolic bishops always rejected Gnostic books. They called the writings of Gnostics “apocrypha,” literally meaning “hidden” in reference to the hidden or secret knowledge of Gnosticism. In his 39th festal letter, Bishop Athanasius used the word “apocrypha” in AD 367, referring to the spurious writings of Gnostics: “nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics . . . to lead astray the simple.” The word “apocrypha” first referred to Gnostic writings and not to these seven books which every apostolic branch of Christianity accepted prior to the Reformation.



The Roman Catholic rockstar of the early 1500’s was Desiderius Erasmus. Beloved by Europe’s academia and political elites for his scholarly work, Erasmus adeptly challenged the great Latin Vulgate Bible of Roman Catholicism by publishing an edited version of it. Erasmus wisely laid the groundwork for his daring publication however, by singing his praises of Jerome loudly and in advance of his edited Latin Vulgate.

When the protesting Reformers rebelled against Rome, the writings of Erasmus had been living rent-free in their minds for many years. Erasmus had painted Jerome as the ultimate scholar, a man whose opinions and writings deserve everyone’s respect. The Reformers therefore had logical reason to follow Jerome by insulting and rejecting seven Old Testament books, despite the fact that Jerome’s insults had not removed these books from the Latin Vulgate, nor the Eastern Orthodox Scriptures, nor those of Ethiopia, Egypt, India, Russia, and the Middle East. Protestants alone lost seven treasuries of divine Scripture during the Reformation.

After the Reformation, a new word was coined for the Gnostic writings. Prior to the Reformation, Gnostic works had been called “apocrypha.” Once Protestants began calling several books of the Christian Old Testament “apocrypha,” the word “pseudepigrapha” was invented for Gnostic writings in order to differentiate between them and the books which Protestants insult as “apocrypha.” I now call these seven Old Testament Scriptures “the wider canon” and not “apocrypha” because they are not apocryphal. That is to say that they are neither Gnostic nor heretical writings.



So here are those seven books which I received (despite the fact that I am not Catholic) and which I regift. Ecclesiasticus is the Roman title for Wisdom of Sirach, a book of wise sayings, much like the book of Proverbs. Wisdom of Solomon is my favorite. It includes a lengthy prophecy of Jesus with shocking detail. Maccabees I and II extend the history of the Jews like the books of Kings and Chronicles. Baruch is very brief; it rails against the sin of idolatry. Finally, Tobit and Judith are adventurous narratives similar to Esther.



In the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, several books of the Protestant Bible are significantly larger. If you trust the first fifteen hundred years of global Christianity, then these enlarged versions are like the Director’s cut of your favorite movie, including scenes which early Christians said Jews had edited out of the Originals.4 Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah, and 2nd Chronicles in the Septuagint include divine passages which are missing in Protestant Bibles.

All of these Scriptures can be read for free at a printed version, I recommend the “Orthodox Study Bible,” which can be purchased many places including:



I look forward to answering many questions about the wider Old Testament canon in future articles, but I close with one important question about these seven books, the fact that there are a few historical “canons” which excluded some of these books. It’s important to notice a difference between the Protestant approach to Scripture and that of Jews and non-Protestant Christians. While Judaism today recognizes 22 books (the Protestant 39 combined as 22), five of those books enjoy an elevated status in Judaism. Those five are the Torah, also known as “the Law,” the five books by Moses. The elevation of the Torah does not in anyway deny the divine inspiration in Jewish eyes of the remaining books in their canon. Likewise, many Christians outside of Protestantism, elevate the four gospels as one book, “the Gospel,” encasing it in precious metals and parading it around the sanctuary during Sunday liturgy. Their elevation of the gospels does not however, deny the divine inspiration of the remaining books of the New Testament.

Second, the word “canon” outside of Protestantism does not always mean what it does in Protestantism.  “Canon” sometimes referred historically to only those books which were read during liturgies. In the eighth century (long after the Christian canon had been established), Saint John of Damascus listed his “canon” without including these seven books in “An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” Yet he quoted from Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, and 2nd Maccabees as authoritative for doctrine, written by prophets, and even “divine Scripture.”

Like the elevation of Torah among Jews and like the elevation of the gospels among non-Protestant Christians, the appearance of a lesser status for some books by some of the Church Fathers does not mean they rejected such books as inspired Scripture. Paul addressed such elevation of various books when he clarified to Timothy, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for . . .” A more detailed look at Christian canons can be found in “Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory” by Edmon Gallagher. Exciting book title, I know!

Finally, even if a few Christians of old did consider these seven books less inspired than the rest of Scripture, the opinions of a minority do not negate the vast majority. For example, Martin Luther’s rejection of James and Revelation did not cause Protestants as a whole to follow suit. If the reader has any doubt regarding the ancient Christian view of these seven books, he or she need only visit a congregation of one of the non-Roman Catholic traditions of old and inquire about that church’s Bible. Whether Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East, the Scriptures will be found there to include all seven of these books without disclaimer, without question, and without the insulting label of “apocrypha.”

Tune in next time for more “Myths of the Apocrypha!”


View Sources
Previous post

Charismatic in an Anglican World

Next post

Weekly Reads {September 26}

Matthew Bryan

Matthew Bryan

Matthew is a post-Protestant disciple of Jesus, an avid disciple-maker, a father of 2 grown men, and the delighted husband of Kristy. He holds a Bachelor of Science summa cum laude from the University of Memphis and has authored 3 books. A former church planter, Matthew now serves within the Restoration Movement. He enjoys reading the letters of Desiderius Erasmus, learning the history of empires, and encouraging believers to take up Biblical Greek for the twin purposes of clarity and unity.

  • Pingback: Biblical Studies Carnival – October 2015 | Reading Acts()

  • Roderick Alvernaz

    I seem to remember that Protestant Bibles carried notations in the New Testament referring to the “apocrypha books” up until the mid-19th century. And that it was the Protestant English and Irish Bible Society who decided to finally remove all notations/references in their Bibles. Am I correct in this?

    • The Rural Commoner

      Yes, you are correct. In fact, Luther placed the “Apocrypha” in his German translation and the King James Bible translators placed it in the 1611 recommending that every Christian should read it. They didn’t believe that it was inspired, but they thought Christians should be familiar with them.

  • Roderick Alvernaz

    Honest and concise. Very well done!

    • mmchanb

      Thank you!

  • Tom Torbeyns

    So what exact canon should I take? I think I believe that Protestantism took the wrong canon. Can you still be a Protestant and take the bigger canon?

    • mmchanb

      Hello, Tom. Thank you for the questions. I know from experience that learning about the wider canon can be disconcerting to Protestant believers. It was a tough, but beneficial pill for me. I hope my reply above to “The Rural Commoner” might prove helpful with your first question.

      In regard to your second question, I personally have taken the approach of shedding the “Protestant” label as outlined in here on Conciliar Post. I am simply “Christian” now, and so I am listening now to all five branches of Christianity. I am not a Protester which is what “Protestant” means; rather, I am happily a Christian. I hope my odd point of view may be helpful to you?

      I do however connect myself deeply and worship with a Protestant congregation on Sunday mornings. They have charitably accepted my approach both to the faith and the canon, even asking me to frequently teach the congregation on Sunday mornings. I am bless by their charity. I pray you will be similarly blessed by a local body of our Lord Jesus.


      • Tom Torbeyns

        Thank you very much for your reply! Feel free to connect with me through facebook, so I can learn from you! 🙂

  • The Rural Commoner

    I have been doing some research in this area on this subject for a few years. I can’t argue with your assertions. They seem to have historical weight backing them up. I would like to see something of your thoughts on the first book of Enoch and Jasher since they are mentioned in the New Testament. Most people who get the theory that fallen angels had relations with women in Genesis 6 got the idea from the first book of Enoch. I have also read the Orthodox Study Bible. Even though there are some things in the study notes I don’t think are correct, most of them are good and the Septuagint translation is good. The only thing I am not sure of is their translation of a word that is usually translated “medium” is translated as “ventriloquist.” I don’t know the texts off hand, but I thought it was a little odd. All I could think of was Kermit the Frog and that guy that used to do a ventriloquist act years ago on Hee Haw! lol

    • mmchanb

      Hi, there. I can’t personally help with the medium/ventriloquist. Where is that, I wonder?

      Regarding Enoch and other disputed texts, I don’t mind withholding my opinion. I find joy in telling people what Christians agree about, and Christians agreed about these seven books before the Reformation. Ethiopian Orthodoxy is the only denomination which has received Enoch as inspired Scripture, which does not mean they are right or wrong to do so.

      A very cool thing about the early bishops is that they shockingly refrained from arguing about which books were holy and inspired. They disagreed, but they disagreed with charity as Eusebius showed in his Ecclesiastical History. They did not argue about who was right and who was wrong. They simply stated which books they personally affirmed as holy and inspired.

      I personally feel 100% comfortable accepting the 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books which every apostolic branch accepted as holy and inspired Scripture prior to the Reformation. If others prefer the shorter Protestant canon, that’s okay with me. If others accept 3rd Corinthians, 3rd Maccabees, etcetera, that doesn’t bother me either. They have to wonder why the worldwide body didn’t agree, but that’s their concern and not mine. If the early bishops didn’t argue about it, I don’t think I need to either.

      The book of Jasher however, is different. I have read it and researched it. I find it has primarily been promoted by Mormons and has not been accepted as Scripture by any of the five primary branches therefore I am confident in rejecting it as Scripture. What are your thoughts on it?

      I hope this helps? Thanks for the questions!

      • The Rural Commoner

        The text I was thinking of is Leviticus 20:27 where the OSB says “A man or woman who is a ventriloquist or a charmer shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, for they are guilty.” Lancelot Brenton’s Septuagint is translated:”And as for a man or woman whosoever of them shall have in them a divining spirit, or be an enchanter, let them both die the death: ye shall stone them with stones, they are guilty.” I like the Orthodox Study Bible as a whole, in fact, I prefer it. However, I thought their translation was odd for this text. The NET translation of the Septuagint also uses “ventriloquist.” I am no Greek scholar, but I looked up the word, and Brenton’s translation seemed to be the best. Maybe I don’t know the real meaning of “ventriloquist!” lol

        • Perhaps Rural – (tongue in cheek) is was Fr. Peter Gilquist (Peter Edward Gillquist[1] (July 13, 1938 – July 1, 2012[2]) was an American archpriest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America and retired chairman of the archdiocese’s department of missions and evangelism. He was chairman of Conciliar Press (Ben Lomond, California) and the author of numerous books, including Love Is Now, The Physical Side of Being Spiritual and Becoming Orthodox. He also served as project director of the Orthodox Study Bible and from 1997 served as the National Chaplain of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity.) Perhaps he liked the “Quist” of ventriloQUIST vs. ‘diviner’ or ‘medium’ – I can only imagine if it was Fr. Jack “Sparks” who handled this verse! (Sorry – you brought out my lower nature sense of humor… m wife points at me and says “Shhhhhhhh”. Sometimes I wonder what our coffee talk in the eternals will sound like! Looking forward to seeing Papa Jack and Sweet Brother Peter. I so love God’s people including folks in DISQUS. (Please feel free to share this: It is the story of the Campus Crusaders who became servant-leaders in the Antiochian Church in America. This will knock your socks off! I was called into the ministry in 1971 in the streets of Berkeley CA under the street preaching of the man you see pictured here. Fr. Jack N. Sparks. The thread of his journey always stayed with me and though not formally Orthodox myself – I am thrilled to find the dialogs of DISQUS!

  • Benjamin Winter

    Great piece. Well-researched, and something I will recommend to others interested in this topic. One question: did you address myth #3? Because one of the reasons I enjoyed Wisdom so much was due to the many resonances in the NT =)

    • mmchanb

      Hi, Ben. I only addressed the first myth on the list. I look forward to addressing the other two.

      • mmchanb

        And thank you for the encouragement, Ben!

        • Benjamin Winter

          You’re welcome! Sorry I did not take adequate note of your intended structure. The reason I thought you were addressing all three here is probably my close association of canon with content (hence #1 and #2 were linked in my mind, leaving #3), i.e. a canonical book (#1), I assume, would not have false teaching (#2).

          Accolades abound for this piece, keep up the good work!

  • Also, can I warn your evangelical readers that they will not find 7 additional books, but 10, in the OSB. The additional 3 are the Epistles of Jeremiah, 2 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees. Oddly, 2 Ezra seems to be cleverly disguised as 1 Ezra on the OSB app on my phone. What it lists as 2 Ezra is the Ezra of the Protestant Bible. I’m thinking that must be a glitch in the app. I don’t have a paper copy to compare it to.

    • mmchanb

      Thanks, Paul. I refrained from discussing the debated books like the latter Maccabees and latter Esdras. I only list the books that had universal acceptance. It truly shocked me to learn that all of Christianity accepted seven books as Scripture that weren’t in my Bible.

      For readers who are less familiar, Jeremiah’s epistle had universal acceptance too. I did not list it as a separate book however, because it is included as part of Jeremiah in some branches of our faith.

      • I only pointed it out because you recommended the Orthodox Study Bible. I look forward to how this series will continue.

        • mmchanb

          Thank you for clarifying!

      • Bob bonnell

        Good dialog brothers! Thanks so much for your Spirit led astuteness!

        • mmchanb

          Thanks, Bob!

          • You’re very welcome. I read the full free gift and bonus gifts to my wife then we had communion together. So grateful to find conciliar and shared hearts. My recent fav fyi these days is st. Ephraim of Syria. Wouldn’t a dialog between him and Erasmus be awesome. Now there’s a coffeehouse I would go to! ; )

            • mmchanb

              Ephraim the Syrian – now there’s a name that makes me smile!

  • According to the RCC, the proper term for those 7 books is “deuterocanon,” meaning second canon.

  • Excellent. Thank you, Matthew!

    • mmchanb