We used the King James Version almost exclusively and no KJV had any of these books. I, therefore, concluded that they were some “Catholic” additions to the Bible. It is not that we were taught that but we weren’t taught anything at all about them. When I finally picked up a Bible (New English Bible) that had them, I didn’t read the additions.
What I was later to find out was that these were not additions but had been subtractions. And the much-beloved KJV had originally contained the Apocrypha until it had been removed for at least partially economic reasons.
It is important for us to know what the Early Church thought of these 14 books. We know that the Jews excluded them from their Bibles around 90 A. D. But we should not take the ideas of the Jewish authorities above the ideas of the Christian authorities.
One indication of the attitude of the Fathers is found in the fact that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers there are “over 300 quotations and references to the deuterocanonical books.” (Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 207)
If that were all then we might not put much stock in this fact simply because they also quoted the pagan poets. But we won’t stop there. There are many instances where the Early Fathers explicitly state that certain Apocryphal books are Scripture.
Clement of Alexandria in his book The Instructor refers to the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach (a.k.a., Ecclesiasticus) as Scripture as follows:
“Whence the Scripture most strenuously exhorts, “Introduce not every one into thy house, for the snares of the crafty are many.” (Sirach 11:29) And in another place, “Let just men be thy guests, and in the fear of the Lord let thy boast remain.” (Sirach 9:16) [ANF 2:278]
St. Cyprian of Carthage also says the same of the Book of Tobit: “And thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying, “Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving.” (Tobit 20:8) [ANF 5:456]
The Banquet of the Ten Virgins by Methodius has the following to say about the Wisdom of Solomon:
“And in the Book of Wisdom, a book full of all virtue, the Holy Spirit, now openly drawing His hearers to continence and chastity, sings on this wise, “Better it is to have no children, and to have virtue, for the memorial thereof is immortal; because it is known with God and with men. When it is present men take example at it; and when it is gone they desire it: it weareth a crown and triumpheth for ever, having gotten the victory, striving for undefiled rewards.” (Wis. 4:1, 2) [ANF: 6: 312]
Origen denominates the book of Maccabees as Scripture in De Prinipis:
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.” (2 Macc. 7:28.) [ANF 4: 270]
While this by no stretch covers all the books of the Apocrypha, it also does not cover all the references in the Fathers to various books as Scripture. What should also be noted is that while some of the books may not be explicitly called Scripture, they are quoted and used in lists with verses from canonical books. They are treated in the same manner as the canonical quotes and not separated or spoken of differently.
The Fathers also tell us something that not many people want to acknowledge today: why these books were removed by the Jewish authorities.
And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. [Justyn Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1:234]
The same sentiment is echoed by Tertullian in his On the Apparel of Women
By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. [ANF 4:16]
While this passage specifically refers to the Book of Enoch, which is not accepted today and was only partially accepted ever, it is applicable to all the Apocrypha.
I think it is pretty clear that much of the Early Church considered the Apocrypha as Scripture and, therefore, they used it as such. Why do we reject these books that they accepted? Well, it goes back to a word that I have used so much: tradition. Theirs accepted these books; ours rejects them. Now, whom are we going to trust? I still like the idea of humbly accepting the earlier ideas of the Church instead of making it up as I go along.
