The term “Apocrypha” designates 15 books of the Greek translation of the Old Testament which often were considered of questionable origin but were nonetheless included in the Bible by the early translators beginning in around 300 BCE. Up until the turn of the 20th Century these books were taken to be valid and authoritative books of the Bible, although the King James Bible never included them. At that time The American Bible Society decided no longer to include such books in the Bibles it published. Thus, most of us grew up without ever hearing of, let alone studying, these books. Fortunately, the modern versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and The New English Bible have returned to the practice of including them.
The Christian Church has always struggled with just how to view these books, although the Jewish community has by and large always considered them as part of their ‘Canon’ of accepted scripture. In addition to the Book of Esther the First and Second Maccabees add a great deal to understanding the Jewish revolt against their Syrian captors and the eventual overthrow of this government in 142 BCE. Of course, this revolt was only temporary and eventually fell to the Romans who continued the occupation and repression of the Jews until they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. A list of the books comprising the Apocrypha can be found at the beginning of either the RSV or New English Bible.
In addition to filling in the historical-political gaps between the Old and New Testaments these books focus once again the key issues about what holy scripture is and how and why according to certain church groups some writings qualify to be included and others do not. Which books are and should actually be included in the official “Canon” of Scripture? The only passage in the Bible that speaks directly to this issue is Paul’s second letter to Timothy.
The King James translation of this passage reads: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof profitable for correction, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” In the New English Bible this verse reads: “Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for the reformation of manners and discipline in right living.” It is easy to see that the subject of the sentence in the Greek is “inspired scripture”, not “all scripture.” So the question of which scripture is inspired is left open, to be determined by other criteria than simply being in the Bible.
So, in the end it is left up to the Chistian community to decide which passages in the sacred writings are “inspired” and which are not. Over the centuries this has remained an open question and we are left right back where we started with respect to the issue of how and/or to what degree any of the scriptures are inspired and thus authoritative. Different Christian, and even Jewish, communities have decided this issue differently, some leaving it an “open question” and others limiting the Bible’s authority to the King James translation.
The fact remains that in the time of Paul’s letter to Timothy not only was the contents of the Hebrew scripture still an open question, but the rest of the New Testament had yet to be written. Moreover, of what was yet to be written there would always be numerous variations and many multiple copies. In fact, the King James version was based on merely the four manuscripts existing at the time.
Today there are literally thousands of manuscripts from which to try to reconstruct the original texts of the scripture. So, we, the broad scope of existing believing communities, must still decide for ourselves the issue of what constitutes the Scriptures. So far, we have done an admirable job of doing this, thanks to the hard work of many, many scholars.
Thus, the questions about the standing of the apocrypha fades into a broader question about which writings should be included in the authoritative scriptures. It’s not an impossible question, but it is one with which the believing communities are still wrestling. It would seem that the issue of which books make up the Bible is still with us – and this renders the issue a live one. Luckily, many scholars have given us strong factual guidelines and our various church leaders have done so as well. In some deep sense, the question remains with each of us.

Back in the 1980s I was given the opportunity to teach for a year in the Rhode Island State prison. I was teaching full-time at nearbye Barrington College at the time and took this extra opportunity to expand my horizons, both academic and personal. The first semester I taught a World Religions course to about a dozen inmates who were in the more relaxed security unit. At first I was a bit nervous, especially when one fellow seemed upset that I was getting chalk-dust on him when erasing the blackboard. Then he asked me if I had any money on me that I could give him. In the end he assured me that he was “Just jivin’ me”.
Overall, the course went along smoothly following the outline presented in a standard World Religions text by Huston Smith. There were two black men in the class who professed the Islamic faith so when we got to Islam they were especially interested and vocal. They wore the headgear that traditional Muslim men wear. When I asked them how wearing that headdress went for them, they replied that when they wore the head-dress they received a lot more respect. The other men in the class paid tight attention to them when they spoke.
Toward the end of the course one man who had been pretty quiet throughout the semester spoke up: “Jer, he said, I get confused by all the different religions I see all around me. There’s the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the Seventh Day Adventurists.” Everyone laughed when he said “Seventh Day Adventurists”, but he did not get the joke until one of his buddies explained it to him. Many of these men spent a good deal of time in the library, some of them studying for their appeals and upcoming citizenship examinations.
The next semester I was “promoted” to teach a class to the men in the Maximum Security Unit. There were only six of them and our class was the only time they had contact with any other prisoners. They lived in solitary cells. I was told by a guard that two of the men had been part of a “Murder Incorporated” group in Florida and that they were in Rhode Island as part of a prisoner distribution program. All three were in prison for committing murder.
I taught a course called the “Search for Meaning” in which we read and discussed “Zorba the Greek” by Nikos Kazantzakis, “The Plague” by Albert Camus, and “Man’s Search For Meaning” by Victor Frankel. These last two books came very close to home for these men and they spoke both openly and strongly about their content. Three of them came every week having read and thought a lot about the events and ideas in the books. Along the way they had a great deal to say about their situation and how they were treated by the guards.
It was “The Plague” that seemed to grab their attention and feelings most forcefully. The admitted to feeling trapped like the citizens of Oran, and to devising similar ways to deal with their “trapped-ness”. At the end of the course, I went to great lengths to arrange to show the film “Zorba the Greek” to them. It was complicated, but well worth the trouble. They did not usually get to see any films at all because of being confined to their own individual cells. They laughed, yelled at Zorba, and loved being the scenery of the island of Crete.
I will admit that I sometimes wondered if I should be worried about being alone with these men who had committed murder, but as the weeks went bye I came to feel at home in my situation. They showed me great respect and expressed great curiosity. The third semester I taught “Creative Writing” to men in Minimum Security, specifically men who had committed sex crimes of some sort. These men were much more like guys on the outside, in a college class, for instance. Many of them were quite smart and some were quite talented writers. I got along well with these guys, and we all learned some good things about how and how not to write brief essays and stories.
I guess all in all I preferred the Maximum Security class because it was the most intense and challenging and the Minimum security class the least for the opposite reasons. All in all it was a wonderful learning experience for me and although I have tried to do it again elsewhere the opportunity has never materialized. I hope I had some positive effect and I certainly learned a great deal.