British Bible Society and the Apocrypha (1826)

At a glance

In 1826–1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society stopped using its funds to print or circulate Bibles that included the deuterocanonical books. Those books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel. Catholics call them deuterocanonical. Protestants usually call them the Apocrypha.

The 1611 King James Bible had printed them in a section between the Testaments. After the Society’s rule, mass-produced English Bibles in Protestant mission work were increasingly the 66-book book. The argument about which books belong in the Old Testament is older than 1826. The Society’s vote changed what ordinary readers held in their hands.

Origin and history

The BFBS was founded in London on 7 March 1804 to circulate the Scriptures “without note or comment.” Its early supporters were largely evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists. From the start, English BFBS editions typically omitted the Apocrypha—partly from Protestant canon theology, partly from cost (fewer pages, cheaper Bibles).

The flashpoint was foreign work. In much of continental Europe, Lutheran and Reformed readers still expected Bibles with the Apocrypha between the Testaments (as in Luther’s arrangement and many national traditions). To cooperate with European Bible societies and reach Catholic as well as Protestant readers, BFBS policy after 1813 often allowed case-by-case funding of editions that included those books abroad.

From about 1819–1821, Scottish evangelical Robert Haldane and allies (including William Thorpe) campaigned to stop all British money from supporting any Bible with the Apocrypha. Compromises in the early 1820s failed to satisfy them. In spring 1826 negotiations broke down; Edinburgh and Glasgow Bible Society branches seceded, and most Scottish auxiliaries followed. At the BFBS Annual General Meetings of 1826 and 1827, the Society adopted resolutions recognizing that its fundamental law excluded circulating the Apocrypha and that no pecuniary aid would go to societies or individuals circulating it—grants of Scripture came with conditions against alteration or addition.

The result was not that every Protestant on earth suddenly “discovered” the deuterocanon was fake, but that the English-speaking world’s most powerful Bible distributor locked in a shorter table of contents for the Bibles it funded—accelerating the cultural forgetting of books the King James Version of 1611 had still printed as “Apocrypha.”

• 1804 — British and Foreign Bible Society founded (London)
• 1813 — pragmatic policy allowing foreign societies latitude on Apocrypha inclusion
• 1819–1821 — Haldane/Thorpe campaign against funded Apocrypha Bibles
• 1822 — unsatisfactory compromise (funds only for non-Apocrypha printing in some cases)
• Spring 1826 — Scottish secession (Edinburgh, Glasgow, then most Scottish branches)
• 1826–1827 — BFBS AGM resolutions: no Society funds for Apocrypha circulation
• 1611 contrast — KJV still included the Apocrypha; later English mass editions increasingly did not

Key figures and parties

Robert Haldane (1764–1842), Scottish evangelical, led the anti-Apocrypha pressure campaign that made compromise impossible. William Thorpe joined the agitation against British funds printing any Bible with those books. On the Society side, directors and continental partners (including figures tied to European distribution such as the work associated with Leander van Ess in German Catholic contexts) had favored pragmatic inclusion abroad so Bibles would be accepted and used.

The Scottish secession created parallel Bible work north of the border and signaled that “Bible only” movements still fight over which Bible. Edinburgh’s published statements against the Apocrypha became part of the Protestant polemical archive—useful to quote when someone claims Protestants never treated these books as biblically adjacent.

• Robert Haldane — chief Scottish agitator against Apocrypha funding
• William Thorpe — co-campaigner from 1821
• BFBS Committee / AGM (1826–1827) — resolutions excluding Apocrypha from funded circulation
• Edinburgh & Glasgow Bible Societies — seceded 1826

What was at stake theologically

Protestant critics called the books “Apocrypha”—useful at most, not inspired. Catholics call the same books deuterocanonical: Scripture received later in dispute but affirmed by the Church as inspired, not a medieval smuggling job. The BFBS fight was downstream of Jerome’s Hebrew preference, Luther’s intertestamental shelf, and Reformed suspicion of books that support prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees) and intercession of saints.

The Society’s “without note or comment” rule was meant to avoid sectarian footnotes. Ironically, omitting whole books is the loudest comment of all: it teaches a canon by silence. Catholics reply that the table of contents is itself a doctrinal claim—and requires an authority Scripture alone cannot supply.

• Protestant claim: Apocrypha not Holy Scripture; funding them misuses Bible-society trust
• Catholic claim: deuterocanon is Scripture; omission is a Reformation and later publishing choice
• Practical stake: which books missionaries put in the hands of the world

Why 1826 matters

English Bibles before the late seventeenth century commonly included the Apocrypha. The Society’s English editions had tended to omit it from 1804, for reasons of doctrine and of cost. The 1826–1827 rule closed the remaining door: foreign editions that Protestants and Catholics on the Continent still expected, with those books between the Testaments, would not be funded either.

The shorter contents did not begin with the apostles, and it did not begin in 1826. Luther had already set the disputed books in a separate section. Trent, in 1546, had listed the longer Catholic canon. What 1826–1827 did was make the shorter book the one a large missionary society would pay to print.

Practice and publishing fallout

After 1826, mass Protestant Bible distribution increasingly normalized 66-book English Bibles. Catholic and Orthodox canons, and older Protestant editions that retained an Apocrypha section, looked “added” to readers who only knew Society-funded printings. The debate is as much about printing history as about theology.

• Society funding rules shape which Bibles spread
• Apocrypha section disappears from many English editions
• Popular memory confuses publishing policy with ancient canon
• Still cited in online deuterocanon debates

Biblical evidence

New Testament authors frequently cite the Greek Old Testament. Hebrews 11:35 alludes to the Maccabean martyrdoms (“others were tortured, refusing to accept release”). Jesus and the apostles debate from a scriptural world larger than the later Protestant 39-book Hebrew count.

The deeper point is meta-biblical: no verse lists the full table of contents. The Church that received the apostolic writings also received the Old Testament shape used in Christian worship. A nineteenth-century society cannot redefine that reception by resolution.

• Hebrews 11:35

  “Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.”

• 2 Maccabees 7
• Wisdom 2:12-20

  “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man… Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

• Luke 24:44

  “He said to them, “This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets,”

Tradition and magisterium

Regional councils (Hippo 393, Carthage 397) and later Florence and Trent list the Catholic Old Testament including the deuterocanon. The 1826 decision was a Bible-society funding rule, not a new list of books.

Protestant confessions (for example Westminster) reject these books as Scripture. The BFBS controversy shows that rejection being enforced as a funding orthodoxy in the missionary age—useful history when interlocutors treat the 66-book Bible as self-evident.

What to know before dialogue

State the 1804 founding, the 1826–1827 resolutions, and the Scottish secession accurately, and contrast them with the 1611 KJV, which still included the Apocrypha. Pivot to the Church’s canon rather than to conspiracy theories about Trent “adding books,” and date the BFBS decision without claiming that every Protestant Bible dropped the books overnight.

• Date the BFBS decision without claiming every Protestant Bible vanished the books overnight.
• Distinguish deuterocanon from true apocrypha.
• Use 1826 to ask who has authority to fix the table of contents.
• Point next to Deuterocanon and The Biblical Canon.

Common misconceptions

Sources

Citations for this article. Browse the full bibliography to see every place each source is used across the library.

Revision history

Who changed this page and when — newest first. Like a wiki edit log.