(7) Seven reasons the King James Translators gave for not incorporating the Apocrypha into the text of Scripture.

1) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was
alone used by the inspired historians and penmen of the Old
Testament.
(Hebrew is the language of God’s chosen people. They are
jealous for it. When the Prophets and other inspired writers
penned their words they used this divine language. The
authors of the Apocrypha did not write in Hebrew but Aramaic
and sometimes Greek.)

2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
(Although it is plain by reading the Apocrypha that the authors
of its individual books tried to make their finished product read
with the ring of Scripture, all of those writers were wise enough
not to pretend any influence of God when writing.)

3) These books were never acknowledged as sacred
Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never
sanctioned by our Lord.
(The early Church Fathers rejected any claim of inspiration for
the Apocrypha and habitually ignored them when preparing
their sermons.)

4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books
during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
(Even during the time when there was some question as to
which books were inspired and which were not, the books of
the Apocrypha were never allowed status equal to the writings
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any other Old Testament writer.)

5) They contain fabulous statements, and statements which
contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves;
as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus
Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many
different places.
(Anyone who reads the Bible knows that it, in itself, makes
fabulous statements, but that it never contradicts itself nor
teaches such heresies as Purgatory and prayers for the dead.)

6) The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the
Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide,
assassination and magical incantation.
(None of these practices are either taught or accepted in divine
Scripture.)

1. Roman Catholic Church – Integrated within true Scripture in an attempt to give it authenticity.
Locations within the Roman Catholic bible
1) Tobit – 14 chapters, follows Nehemiah.
2) Judith – 16 chapters, follows Tobit.
3) 1 Maccabees – 16 chapters, follows Esther.
4) 2 Maccabees – 15 chapters, follows 1 Maccabees.
5) Book of Wisdom – 19 chapters, follows the Song of Solomon.
6) Ecclesiasticus – 51 chapters, follows the Book of Wisdom
7) Baruch – 6 chapters, follows Lamentations.
8) additions to Esther.
9) additions to Daniel.

2. The Jews – The Jews have always jealously guarded their Holy
Scriptures. They have never accepted any of the apocryphal books or additions as genuine, although they saw their historic value.

3. The True Church – The early church also rejected them as canonical although many translations printed before the King James Bible included the Apocrypha for its historic value.
a. Early translations
1) The Old Latin
2) Jerome’s Vulgate – within the text
b. Pre-King James
1) The Coverdale Bible – between the Testaments
2) The Geneva Bible – between the Testaments

4. King James Bible – Not one of the translators of the King James Bible accepted the Apocrypha as inspired. By placing the Apocrypha between the testaments, they were following a precedent established centuries before they were even born. Anyone who claims that they accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture is either ignorant of the truth or intentionally misleading his hearers so as to damage the image of the King James Bible.

I asked Grok AI some questions about the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the early editions of the KJV.

Me:
New Subject: The Textus Receptus from which the 1611 KJV was translated.
Did that contain the Apocrypha? Or did the translators insert that into the first editions from other source manuscripts?
Did the Translators consider it scripture proper? or were they told to include it?
What was King James personal opinion about the apocrypha? Hid he consider it scripture? Was it inserted to appease his opinions? Or to satisfy the opinions of the English church at those times?

Grok Responds:
Thought for 23s

The Textus Receptus refers specifically to the Greek text of the New Testament, as compiled in editions starting with Erasmus in 1516 and refined by later scholars like Stephanus and Beza. It does not contain the Apocrypha (also called the Deuterocanonical books), which are part of the Old Testament tradition derived from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and Latin Vulgate, not the Greek New Testament manuscripts that form the Textus Receptus.

christianity.stackexchange.com +2

The Apocrypha was included in the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, but it was translated from separate sources—primarily the Septuagint and Vulgate—rather than being “inserted” from the Textus Receptus or the Hebrew Masoretic Text used for the canonical Old Testament.

sc-hunter.com +2

The KJV translators did not consider the Apocrypha to be “scripture proper” in the sense of being divinely inspired or canonical for establishing doctrine. Instead, they placed it in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, viewing it as useful for historical and moral instruction but not on par with the Protestant canon of 66 books.

bible-truth.org +2

This aligns with the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563), which state that the Apocrypha should be read “for example of life and instruction of manners” but not used “to establish any doctrine.”

chick.com

The translators were instructed to follow the practices of the English Church, which at the time included the Apocrypha in Bibles (as seen in earlier Protestant translations like the Geneva Bible and Bishops’ Bible), partly because portions were used in the church’s lectionary readings.

reddit.com +2

It wasn’t a matter of being “told” in a coercive sense but rather adhering to the established ecclesiastical norms and the guidelines set for the translation project.King James I himself did not consider the Apocrypha to be canonical scripture.

gracelifebiblechurch.com

His writings, such as those in The Political Works of James I, indicate he viewed it as non-inspired, and he reportedly favored Bibles without it to reduce bulk and printing costs.

christianforums.net

The inclusion was not to appease his personal opinions—quite the opposite, as it went against his preference—but rather to align with the broader traditions and expectations of the Church of England during that era.

av1611.com +1

This practice was common in early 17th-century Protestant Bibles, though the Apocrypha was increasingly omitted in later printings starting around the 1620s for doctrinal, economic, and polemical reasons (e.g., to distinguish from Catholic Bibles).

quora.com +1

Just as a historical aside…
And the typo is not even in the sacred text…