KJV Bible & Apocrypha – Gathering of Christ Church

This article dissects the claims made by groups like the Gathering of Christ Church regarding the KJV Bible and Apocrypha, revealing how they distort canonical history and misapply scripture. We expose the adversary's tradition-driven readings, contrasting them with the authentic Hebraic-Messianic f

Quick Answer

KJV Bible & Apocrypha – Gathering: Unmasking False Claims Quick Answer Quick Answer: The KJV Bible & Apocrypha – Gathering of Christ Church and similar Black Hebrew Israelite groups erroneously elevate the Apocrypha to canonical status, misrepresenting historical Jewish and early Messianic rejection of these texts as scripture. The true Hebraic canon, affirmed by Yeshua…

KJV Bible & Apocrypha – Gathering: Unmasking False Claims

Quick Answer

Quick Answer: The KJV Bible & Apocrypha – Gathering of Christ Church and similar Black Hebrew Israelite groups erroneously elevate the Apocrypha to canonical status, misrepresenting historical Jewish and early Messianic rejection of these texts as scripture. The true Hebraic canon, affirmed by Yeshua and the apostles, excludes the Apocrypha, rendering claims of "removal" from the KJV as canonical distortion, not restoration.

The Scholarly Case for the Hebraic Canon

The question of the KJV Bible and Apocrypha, particularly as raised by groups like the Gathering of Christ Church (GOCC), demands a rigorous examination grounded in the primary sources of the Hebraic faith. The foundation of the biblical canon, for Yeshua and His early followers, was unequivocally the Tanakh—the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). This tripartite division aligns precisely with the Jewish canon, which was settled long before the advent of the Brit Chadashah. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the 1st century CE, explicitly articulated the Jewish understanding of the canon in his work Against Apion 1.8. He stated that the Jewish people possessed only twenty-two books (corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament today), which were considered divinely inspired and authoritative. Josephus emphasized that "from Artaxerxes to our own time, all things have been written; but have not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there was not an exact succession of prophets since that time." This statement directly addresses the books now known as the Apocrypha, which were written during this intertestamental period. They were recognized as historical or wisdom literature but never granted canonical status. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul unequivocally declared that the Jewish people were "entrusted with the very words of God" (Romans 3:2). This trust pertained to the established Hebrew canon, not to the additional Greek writings that would later form the Apocrypha. Yeshua Himself, in His interactions with the religious leaders of His day, constantly appealed to the authority of "the Law and the Prophets," never once citing any book from the Apocrypha as divine scripture. His pronouncements consistently upheld the integrity and sufficiency of the Hebrew Scriptures as the revealed word of Elohim. The Apocryphal books, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees, were never included in the Hebrew canon. This is a critical distinction often overlooked or intentionally obscured by those who promote their canonicity. The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, did include some of these books, leading to their wider circulation among Greek-speaking Jews and, subsequently, early Greek-speaking Christian communities. However, their inclusion in the LXX did not automatically confer canonical status. The Jewish community itself, which produced the LXX, maintained a clear distinction between sacred scripture and other beneficial writings. Even within early post-apostolic Greek-speaking commentators, there was significant debate and often a clear rejection of the Apocrypha's canonical authority. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the late 4th and early 5th centuries CE, famously distinguished between the "canonical" books and the "ecclesiastical" books (the Apocrypha) in his Prologus Galeatus (Helmeted Prologue). He maintained that while the Apocrypha could be read for edification, they were not to be used to establish doctrine, precisely because they were not part of the Hebrew canon. Jerome's stance directly reflects the Jewish position and was foundational for the later Protestant Reformation's rejection of the Apocrypha as canonical. The claim that the original 1611 King James Version (KJV) included the Apocrypha is historically accurate but profoundly misleading when used to argue for its canonicity. The KJV translators, following the tradition of earlier English Bibles like the Geneva Bible, included the Apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, often with a preface indicating their non-canonical status. They explicitly stated, as noted in the KJV preface itself, that these books were "read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." This mirrors Jerome's earlier distinction. The removal of the Apocrypha from later printings of the KJV was not an act of suppression but a practical decision reflecting the prevailing Protestant theological consensus, which aligned with the ancient Jewish understanding of the canon. It was a reaffirmation of the principle that "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn" (Isaiah 8:20). The Law and the Testimony, for Yeshua and the apostles, were the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Apocrypha. The Hebraic-Messianic faith stands firm on the canon affirmed by Yeshua and passed down by the Jewish people. This canon is the bedrock upon which all doctrine is built. Any deviation, whether by adding or subtracting from this established corpus, constitutes a departure from the faith once delivered.

Adversary Teardown: Black Hebrew Israelite Canonical Distortions

The Black Hebrew Israelite (BHI) movement, including factions like the Gathering of Christ Church (GOCC), Israel United in Christ (IUIC), and Great Millstone (GMS), frequently weaponizes the historical inclusion of the Apocrypha in early KJV editions to bolster their canonical claims and attack Protestantism. For instance, the GOCC includes the "Center column reference Bible with the Apocrypha" as part of their "scholar package" for new academy members, implying its essential nature for study. Similarly, Great Millstone (GMS) factions, such as 'greatmillstonedailybread411', cite specific verses from books like Ecclesiasticus (e.g., Ecclesiasticus 5:7) from the "King James 1611 Bible (specifically 'Apocrypha')" as if they carry the same weight as the Torah or Prophets. This approach reveals a fundamental misunderstanding, or intentional misrepresentation, of canonical history. The BHI claim that the original 1611 KJV had 80 books (including the Apocrypha) and that its removal constitutes 'taking away from the book' in violation of Revelation 22:18-19 is a severe distortion. This doctrine, which asserts the Apocrypha was accepted for nearly 2000 years and was arbitrarily removed, is a cornerstone of their canonical critique. However, this BHI tradition breaks from the 1st-century Hebraic faith and the clear testimony of Jewish history. The Jewish canon was closed by the time of Ezra, long before the Apocryphal books were written. As Josephus attested in Against Apion 1.8, the Jewish people never considered these later writings to be on par with the Law, Prophets, and Writings. The BHI narrative ignores the consistent Jewish rejection of these books as scripture, a position that predates the KJV by over 1500 years. The lineage of this specific BHI canonical distortion can be traced through the late 19th and early 20th-century origins of the movement. While early BHI figures like Frank Cherry (Church of God, 1886) and William Saunders Crowdy (Church of God and Saints of Christ, 1896) focused more on racial identity and the Deut 28 curses, later figures and factions began to develop more elaborate theological arguments, including canonical ones. Wentworth Arthur Matthew (Commandment Keepers, 1919) and subsequent groups like IUIC and GMS have increasingly emphasized the Apocrypha, often to distinguish themselves from mainstream Protestantism and to 'prove' a perceived corruption of the biblical text. This deviation from the consensus Jewish canon, affirmed by Yeshua, took root not in ancient Judea, but in modern America, driven by a desire to establish a distinct identity and theological framework. The BHI argument concerning Revelation 22:18-19 is particularly egregious. "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book." This passage refers specifically to the book of Revelation itself, not the entire biblical canon. To apply it to the Apocrypha's exclusion from the KJV is a gross misinterpretation of its context and intent. The Hebraic canon was fixed, and Yeshua Himself operated within its bounds. The BHI movement's attempt to expand the canon, particularly by elevating texts consistently rejected by the Jewish people and the early Messianic movement, is a clear example of tradition-driven readings that broke from 1st-century Hebraic faith.

Counter-Arguments Anticipated

Objection 1: The Apocrypha was in the Septuagint (LXX), proving its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.

The presence of Apocryphal books in the Septuagint (LXX) does not equate to canonical acceptance. The LXX was a collection of Jewish writings translated into Greek, not a formally canonized scripture collection. While these books were read and valued for historical or moral instruction, they were never considered divinely inspired scripture by the Jewish community that produced the LXX. As Josephus stated in Against Apion 1.8, the Jewish people maintained a strict canon of twenty-two books, and no prophetic succession existed after Artaxerxes to authorize new scripture. The early Greek-speaking post-apostolic commentators, like Jerome in his Prologus Galeatus, also recognized this distinction, affirming the Hebrew canon as the sole source for doctrine.

Objection 2: The Apocrypha was removed from the KJV by Protestants to suppress truth or save money, violating Revelation 22:18-19.

The claim that the Apocrypha was "removed" from the KJV to suppress truth or for economic reasons is a historical misrepresentation. The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha in a separate section, clearly distinguishing it from the canonical books, and explicitly stating in its preface that these books were for "instruction of manners" but not for "establish[ing] any doctrine." This aligns with the Jewish and early Christian understanding. The eventual removal from later printings was a reflection of this established theological position, not a canonical alteration. Furthermore, Revelation 22:18-19 pertains specifically to the book of Revelation itself, warning against adding to or taking away from "this book" of prophecy, not the entire biblical canon. Applying it to the Apocrypha is a miscontextualization of scripture.

Objection 3: Some New Testament writers quoted or alluded to Apocryphal books, indicating their canonical status.

While some New Testament writers may have occasionally alluded to or referenced themes found in Apocryphal books, this does not confer canonical status. Biblical authors frequently drew upon various sources, including secular literature, for illustrative purposes without endorsing them as divinely inspired scripture. For example, Paul quotes pagan poets in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12. The key distinction is direct quotation as authoritative scripture, which Yeshua and the apostles consistently reserved for the Hebrew Tanakh. There is no instance where Yeshua or the apostles cited an Apocryphal book as "the word of God" or "it is written," which they frequently did for the Law, Prophets, and Psalms (Luke 24:44).

Position Lock

Position Lock: The Hebraic-Messianic faith unequivocally affirms the Hebrew canon (Tanakh) as the complete and authoritative Old Covenant scripture, excluding the Apocrypha. Yeshua and His apostles consistently upheld this canon, and any attempt by adversary traditions to expand it or misrepresent its history constitutes a departure from the foundational truth revealed by Elohim.