Before you read: This article is part of a larger series that builds upon itself from the foundation up, with each study building on the last. If something in this article does not make sense to you or if you believe it to be incorrect, please ensure you have read the entire series before passing final judgment. Also, be sure to visit this page’s FAQ And Objections Page
You may have heard of other books of scripture that are not in the Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jasher, the Gospel of Judas, and many more. Some believe them to be “lost books” of the Bible. However, there is a good reason these books were not included in the Bible.
These books are known as the Apocrypha. The word “Apocrypha” means “of doubtful authenticity,” and that is precisely why they are not included. It is highly doubtful that they are the genuine word of God. They serve more as distractions than divine revelations.
The best way to hide a needle is to put it in a haystack. If you wanted to discredit the Bible, you might introduce many fake books to muddy the waters. Satan is clever enough to understand that this is an effective strategy.
As a result, various other books were introduced to the public. Many of the writings in these books conflict with what is found in the canon of the Bible. This inconsistency, among other reasons, is why they were not included.
Some argue that these books prove the scriptures are unreliable, placing the Apocrypha on the same level as the books of the Bible. This leads them to believe the Bible is incomplete at best and contradictory at worst. Remember—muddy waters.
There’s an old saying: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” This is exactly what Satan attempts to do with the Apocrypha. These books are the bathwater, while the Bible is the baby. I know this analogy may ruffle some feathers, but the Apocrypha does not belong in the canon of the Bible. Here’s why.
How the Canon Was Decided
The process of selecting the biblical canon was carried out with great care. Church councils didn’t simply throw darts at a list of books. Each book had to meet strict criteria to be included. They asked several important questions:
Was the text verifiably written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle (e.g., Mark for Peter, Luke for Paul)?
Was it consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles? Was it consistent with the rest of the Old Testament?
Was the text widely known, used, and accepted in Christian worship and teaching across many regions?
Was the text regularly read during worship?
These questions all boiled down to one fundamental issue: authorship.
If a text wasn’t consistent with the teachings of Jesus or the apostles, it wasn’t written by them. If it didn’t align with the Old Testament, it wasn’t written by them. If it was an obscure text that no one had heard of, it wasn’t written by them.
The same types of questions were applied to both the Old Testament and New Testament canons. The Old Testament was canonized by the people in the Bible itself, who were known publicly and famously. Books not included in the Old Testament were often written by unknown individuals, and that alone was sufficient reason for their exclusion.
The same principle applies to the New Testament. Only books written by eyewitnesses of Jesus or their close associates were considered canon. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament books were canonized because they were written by their attributed authors.
Doubtful Authorship
Anyone can write a book and claim to be someone they are not. Just because a book says, “Call me Ishmael,” doesn’t mean it was written by Ishmael. However, if a widely known book can trace its origins back to a verified author named Ishmael, then there’s a strong likelihood it was written by him.
This cannot be said for books that make similar claims but are not widely known and cannot be traced to their supposed authors. For example, the Book of Enoch was not considered canon at the time of Jesus, nor at any point before that. It was not widely recognized as authentic, if it was recognized at all. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that it was written by Enoch. This is why it is not part of the canon of the Hebrew scriptures.
The Apocrypha Today
Today, some Bibles still include the Apocryphal books, particularly those used by Catholics and certain other religious groups. Catholics refer to them as the “Deuterocanon,” meaning “second canon.”
It is important to note that none of these Apocryphal books are included in the original Hebrew canon (the Masoretic Texts). They are only found in the Septuagint (LXX), which, as mentioned in earlier studies, is largely discredited in its authority. Despite this, some religions, such as Catholicism, continue to prefer the Septuagint over the rabbinical Hebrew scriptures.
Even in Catholic Bibles, these books are placed in their own section, separate from the Old and New Testaments, and labeled as “second canon.” This distinction highlights their questionable status, even within those traditions.
Some argue that these books should still be considered canon, often claiming that they were part of the Bible until the 1900s. A common argument is that the original King James Version of 1611 included these books.
What they fail to understand is that while the original King James Version did include these books, it presented them as reference material to better understand Jewish traditions—not as scripture. The Apocrypha was placed between the Old and New Testaments in its own section.
As with Catholic Bibles, these books were not part of the original scriptures. Instead, they were included as commentary or supplemental material to provide context, but they were never regarded as authoritative scripture.
The reality is that these books have never been considered canon by the actual Christian Church. I say “actual” because a distinction must be made: Catholicism is not Christianity. This topic will be discussed elsewhere on this site.
The Apocrypha remains present in modern times and can still be interesting to read, offering insights into Jewish traditions. However, these books are not scripture and carry no divine authority.
While the Bible occasionally references other writings, such as secular Greek philosophers, this does not elevate those writings to the status of scripture either.
I am reminded of someone once saying, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” a sentiment I agreed with. When they added that it was a quote from Mohammed, I replied that it didn’t matter who said it—it is still true. Even the Devil can tell the truth, though he twists it to mislead.
This is what the Apocrypha represents: distortions of the truth. They are not to be feared, but neither are they to be regarded as authoritative or entirely trustworthy.
Unit 1:13 – How to Understand the Bible OR
Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God