The Apocrypha: Part 3 – History of Removal: King James, Martin Luther, and the Protestant Split

Welcome back to our journey through biblical history! If you've been following along, you now understand what the apocrypha is and how it differs from the deuterocanonical books. Today, we're diving into one of the most fascinating chapters in church history: how and why certain books were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Grab your coffee, settle in with your small group, and prepare for some eye-opening historical detective work. This isn't just ancient history – it's the story behind the Bible you hold in your hands today.

The Great Divide: Setting the Stage

Picture this: It's the early 1500s, and the Christian world is about to split wide open. Martin Luther has just nailed his 95 Theses to a church door, challenging Catholic practices like indulgences. The Reformation isn't just about theology – it's about authority, politics, and who gets to decide what counts as Scripture.

Here's where it gets interesting: the removal of certain books from Protestant Bibles didn't happen overnight. It was a gradual process spanning nearly 300 years, driven by theology, politics, and surprisingly – printing costs.

Martin Luther: The Pioneer of Separation (1534)

Martin Luther didn't actually remove the apocrypha – he did something more nuanced. In his 1534 German Bible translation, Luther moved seven books into a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. These books were:

• Tobit

• Judith

• Additions to Esther

• Wisdom of Solomon

• Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

• Baruch

• 1 and 2 Maccabees

Luther labeled this section as books that were "useful and good to read" but not equal to Scripture for establishing doctrine. Think of it like putting books in a "special collection" at the library – still valuable, but in a different category.

Group Discussion Question: Why do you think Luther chose this middle-ground approach instead of completely removing these books?

The Anglican Compromise (1571)

The Church of England tried to find a diplomatic solution. In the Thirty-nine Articles around 1571, they stated that the apocrypha should be "read for example of life" but not used "to establish any doctrine."

This was brilliant political maneuvering – they kept the books for moral instruction while removing their doctrinal authority. It's like saying, "These are great stories with good lessons, but they can't be used to create church policy."

The Westminster Confession: Making It Official (1647)

During the English Civil War in 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith took a harder line. Under the Archbishop of Canterbury, they officially removed the apocrypha from the canon of the English Bible.

This wasn't just a theological decision – it was happening during a civil war when religious and political authority were closely intertwined. The Puritans wanted a "pure" Bible based solely on the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.

The Catholic Counter-Response: Council of Trent (1546)

Here's where the plot thickens. The Catholic Church wasn't going to take this lying down. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), specifically in 1546, they formally declared the deuterocanonical books as fully canonical Scripture with complete authority for establishing doctrine.

This created the fundamental divide we see today: Catholics declared these books divinely inspired Scripture, while Protestants maintained they shouldn't be used for establishing church doctrine.

Group Discussion Question: How do you think this theological disagreement affected relationships between Catholic and Protestant Christians?

The Shocking Truth: It Wasn't King James

Here's something that might surprise you: the original 1611 King James Bible actually included the apocrypha. Early KJV editions contained these books, just like earlier English translations such as the Geneva Bible.

The King James translators didn't remove anything – they translated what was considered the complete Bible at that time. The removal happened much later for completely different reasons.

The Final Blow: Money Talks (1804-1825)

Ready for the most surprising part of this story? The final removal of the apocrypha from most Protestant Bibles had nothing to do with theology – it was about printing costs.

In 1804, the British and Foreign Bible Society made a business decision: drop the apocrypha to reduce printing expenses. By 1825, this cost-cutting measure had effectively ended regular inclusion of these books in Protestant Bibles.

Imagine that conversation: "Well, we could include these books that Christians have read for over a thousand years... or we could save money on ink and paper."

What This Means for Us Today

Understanding this history helps us realize several important truths:

1. The "Protestant Bible" is a relatively recent development – for most of Christian history, these books were included in Christian Bibles.

2. The removal wasn't primarily about divine revelation – it was about church authority, theological disputes, and practical considerations.

3. These aren't the same as true "apocryphal" books – we're not talking about the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, or the Gospel of Judas. Those were written much later and never had widespread acceptance in the early church.

4. Both Catholics and Protestants share the same core Bible – we're debating about seven books, not the entire foundation of our faith.

The Real Apocrypha: Books Never Considered Canon

Now let's clear up some confusion. When people today say "apocrypha," they often lump together:

• Deuterocanonical books (Catholic Bible books not in Protestant Bibles)

• True apocryphal writings (books like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas)

These are completely different categories. The Gospel of Judas wasn't written until the 2nd-4th centuries AD and was never seriously considered for inclusion in any mainstream Christian Bible. The same goes for the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic writings.

Group Discussion Question: Why is it important to distinguish between deuterocanonical books and later apocryphal writings?

Practical Applications for Small Groups

As Christians studying this history, how should we respond?

1. Approach with humility – Sincere believers on both sides had genuine reasons for their positions.

2. Focus on unity – We share far more Scripture in common than we disagree about.

3. Study with context – Understanding why decisions were made helps us evaluate them fairly.

4. Appreciate the process – God used imperfect people and political situations to preserve His Word.

Moving Forward Together

This historical journey shows us that Bible formation involved real people making difficult decisions in challenging circumstances. Some decisions were theological, some political, and some frankly practical.

The beauty is that through all of this human messiness, God's essential message of salvation through Jesus Christ has remained crystal clear in every version of the Bible – Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

Group Reflection: How does understanding this history change your appreciation for the Bible you read today?

Next Week Preview

In Part 4, we'll explore the actual content of the deuterocanonical books and discover the valuable lessons they contain – lessons that can still enrich our faith today, regardless of how we view their canonical status.

Discussion Questions for This Week:

1. Which aspect of this historical timeline surprised you most?

2. How do you think Christians should approach differences in biblical canons?

3. What can this history teach us about handling disagreements in the church today?

Remember, studying church history isn't about choosing sides – it's about understanding how God has worked through imperfect people and circumstances to preserve His truth throughout the centuries.

Ready to dive deeper into biblical history and strengthen your faith foundation? Dr. Layne McDonald offers coaching and workshops that help Christians navigate complex theological questions with wisdom and grace. Visit our leadership page to learn more about growing in biblical knowledge and Christian leadership.