The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[RobbyS]

Paul does not cease being a Jew, and we might even say that, since the Law—properly read— ends in obedience to Jesus, that Judaism is the only true religion. Our God is the God of Abraham , Issac and Jacob, not the god of the philosophers, of Plato and Aristotle, as Pascal remind us. Since the beginning, there have always been those who, like Marcion, wants us to cut out ties to the Jews. But here we are and here they are.

[smvoice]

"What are Peter and the 11 promised by Christ that they will be doing when He returns and sets up His Kingdom on earth?"

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28.

So, Peter and the 11 were to go to all nations, preaching the kingdom gospel to all people, but when Christ returns to set up His kingdom, they will be judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Does that make any sense? The only way it makes sense is IF Israel HAD ACCEPTED CHRIST as their Messiah, THEN the 12 would have gone to all nations, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, Christ would have returned, set up His Kingdom, and Israel would have become a nation of priests and a blessing to all nations. But we know that Israel REJECTED Christ. And they were blinded, set aside, became Lo Ammi, and the Kingdom is now in abeyance, until the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in. Which is where Paul enters. And the Church the Body of Christ. And the gospel of the grace of God.

If Christ promised them in Mat. 19:28 that they would be judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the Millineal reign, and IF Christ told them to "go NOT into the way of the Gentiles" (10:5), and IF Christ emphasizes in 15:24 that He was sent to Israel- "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then what would common sense tell you they believed? NOT to go to the Gentiles with any kingdom gospel until those they are going to judge one day (Israel) is FIRST brought to belief.

Mark, you're giving me tradition as proof they went outside Israel. That is not what the Bible says. They did EXACTLY as commanded BY CHRIST.

[Natural Law]

"but when Christ returns to set up His kingdom, they will be judging the 12 tribes of Israel."

It does not say "judging JUST the twelve tribes". It also does not say that everyone else (the nations of the world) will not be judged or by whom they will be judged.

[smvoice]

Let me ask you this: how will the Gentile Nations be blessed during the Millenial reign of Christ? Or do you believe there will be actual Nations on this earth for Christ’s 1000 year Kindgom? And just what does the covenant God made with Abraham mean? One more question: Why twelve disciples? Why not 11 or 15? Or when Judas betrayed Christ and went to his own, why was he replaced by Matthias? Why was it necessary to replace him when they did?

[Dutchboy88]

"Paul does not cease being a Jew..."

This remark and those following are peculiar. What are you driving at? Our original discussion was about the RCC holding onto elements of the Law after it was done away with. Those elements, papalism (chief priest), sacerdotalism (priesthood), sacraments (sacrifices), cathedrals (temples) were all shadows of the real thing, Jesus, but have been wrongly continued. You accused Protestantism of the same thing. Does this mean that you concur that the Law is gone, but certain groups (including Rome) are holding onto a Christian/Jewish hybridism?

The thread is about the KJV tipping its hat to the Apocrypha, thereby authenticating the Catholic version of the Bible. I simply said they don't even follow the Bible they claim to have delivered. That claim still stands in spite of the obscure remarks you have made.

[OKSooner]

" The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll..."

Uh... a much more integral... uh... "role"?

[Natural Law]

"Let me ask you this: how will the Gentile Nations be blessed during the Millenial reign of Christ?"

The Church does not teach, nor do I believe in Millennialism.

[smvoice]

So...exactly what does your church do with about 3/4 of the Bible? I’m asking a valid question here, not being rude.

[Natural Law]

"So...exactly what does your church do with about 3/4 of the Bible?"

The same thing we do with the other 1/4. We compile, preserve, defend and interpret it.

From the CCC: 672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.

680: Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.

681: On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

[RobbyS]

I reject your contentions because of one very strong Catholic contention, which is that there is no absolute break between Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, we think that so much in the Torah, both ceremonial and in doctrine , is a foreshadowing of the Gospel. The priesthood, which you reject, is the continuation of a tradition that goes back to Abraham, foreshadowed in the priest-king of Salem Mechezidak, whose offering of bread and wine, are, so we think, a foreshadowing of the Eucharist, and the todah—thanks-giving offering institutioned by David, who is the figure of the Christ. We have always rejected the notion of a hereditary class,, like the Levites, and the need for a temple. But we don’t reject the broader notion of the priesthood of the people of God, and the narrower one of the sacrerdotal priesthood or the re-presentation of the Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary in the mass.

[Dutchboy88]

The “re-prentation of the Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary in the mass” is one of the abominations the believers in Jesus Christ, alone, reject. The Scriptures are so patently clear a once-and-for-all sacrifice in His blood was sufficient that any “re-presentation” of it is a fabrication of men, a true blasphemy. Heb. 7:27, “Jesus...who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL when He offered up Himself.” One of us is grossly mistaken here, my FRiend.

Every believer is in a “priesthood nation” insofar as we can speak of the grace granted to anyone drawn into the family of God (IPet 2:9, “But you are a chosen race, a royal prieshood, a holy nation, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of the darkness into His marvelous light.”

There is no ceremonial priesthood. There is no absolution of sin by other men. There is no pope. There are no indulgences. There are no sacraments. There is no veneration of Saints. There is only Jesus.

[HarleyD]

And the people chosen for instruction was Israel.

Are you talking about those that died in the wilderness because of their unbelief?

[smvoice]

AMEN, Dutchboy88. Any attempt to recreate Christ's finished work is an abomination. There is no "temple" today. "What? know ye not that YOUR BODY is the TEMPLE of the Holy Ghost which is IN YOU, which ye HAVE OF GOD, and ye are not your own?" 1 Cor. 6:19. Everything we are, we have, and we will have one day is spiritual. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. We can go bodly to the throne of God. There is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. We are COMPLETE in Him. He resides IN US, and we reside IN HIM. THere is no "place" to go to to find God. He is either in you or not in you, but He is not in a building, waiting for you to come to Him. He resides in a temple made without hands. The body of every believer. Our inheritance is in heavenly places, not earthly.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with ALL spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."Eph. 1:3. "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Eph. 2:6.

There is not a man, an organization, a ceremonial priesthood, a pope, an indulgence, a sacrament, a Saint, or an absolution of sin by other men that would only stand in the way of our direct standing IN CHRIST.

[RobbyS]

If by bloody sacrifices, no. Which is what Hebrews is talking about.It is a polemic against the Temple, which was a virtual slaughter house. But the Eucharest is the unbloody sacrifice, the re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, which as Hebrews also says, is like the sacrifice of Melchizedek, an offering of bread and wine. As for the chosen race, a royal priesthood, that is an appellation for the whole nation of Israel, such as they were until then rebellion against Moses, after which the Levites was set apart. Protestantism begins with a rejection of the apostolic succession and with the priesthood. It begins with a negative, and all your interpretations are colored by its effort to prove this negative. Hebrews is the most anti-judaic book in the New Testament, but in trying to interpret it we are hobbled by a common problem. We don’t know the historical context. Is it directed against the Sadducees, or more broadly against the Jewish leaders? Biblical scholarship, which has spent so much time trying to discredit the traditional views, upon which both Catholics and Protestants depended, and which they both accepted, gives us little help.

[RobbyS]

Is not Christ the temple? Is he not the head and We the body?

[smvoice]

Please explain to me how the Book of Hebrews is the "most anti-judaic book in the New Testament" when it is written to THE HEBREWS. And perhaps you are overlooking the Books of Hebrews through Revelation as to FUTURE events, the tribulation and the tribulation saints of the last days. Written to and for those going through the tribulation. Hebrews is written to THE HEBREWS, James is written to "the twelve tribes that are scattered abroad", 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Jude are all written surrounding these "last days", the eminent return of Christ, enduring to the end, the "last times", etc. And of course they all lead to the Book of Revelation.

If you will notice, the Book of Hebrews, being to the Hebrews, means the middle wall of partition that separated Jews from Gentiles during the dispensation of the grace of God is back up. If Jews and Gentiles are separated again, that means something MAJOR has occured for the wall of partition to be back up. Think about it..

[smvoice]

"ANd hath put all things under His feet and gave Him to be the head over all things to THE CHURCH, which is HIS BODY, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." Eph. 1:22,23.

We are a temple made without hands. Located in the heavenlies. There is no temple made with hands to go to in order to find God.

[aruanan]

And just what does the covenant God made with Abraham mean?

God always had a single plan for the whole world through Abraham, the father of faith, that culminated in the faithful servant Israel, in the person of the Messiah, Jesus, giving his life to ransom all who, throughout history, have put their faith in God, believed him, and had it credited to them as right standing with God. This is the gospel. There is no gospel without the covenant God made with Abraham. Period.

I think the choice of Matthias to replace Judas was just another example of worldly thought, "Well, dang, we gotta do something, right?" WRONG. What they did was along the same lines as imagining that it should have been Esau, the elder, rather than Jacob, the younger, receiving the blessing of Isaac, or Jacob, crossing his hands and blessing the younger over the older of Joseph's two sons. God had other plans. This was demonstrated throughout the scriptures again and again and again. And again with Paul, whom Jesus chose as his apostle to the Gentiles. It was Jesus who chose the apostles, one of whom was a betrayer, not Peter and the rest through some bureaucratic need to do something. It was Jesus who filled the gap Judas Iscariot's departure left.

[smvoice]

"It was Jesus who filled the gap Judas Iscariot's departure left."

Absolutely right. It was not a "mistake", or the 11 acting outside God's will, that made Matthias the 12th Disciple. They prayed for days about this, and put it in God's hands. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two THOU HAST CHOSEN." Acts 1:24.

But my question was, why 12? Why was there a NECESSITY for there to be 12 Disciples? The answer comes in the next chapter of Acts. Chapter 2 and also Chapter 3.

Which will also answer the first part of your post to me regarding Abraham.

[Dutchboy88]

"Protestantism begins with a rejection of the apostolic succession and with the priesthood. It begins with a negative, and all your interpretations are colored by its effort to prove this negative."

I have no idea what "Protestantism" is; I don't believe you do either. But the Scriptures omit hundreds of things people believe in. It omits Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Krishna, the Yin Yang, LSD, the Beatles, etc. To stick with that which the Scriptures address as true and reliable is not being negative, it is simply avoiding the vain imaginings of men.

Apostolic succession does not appear in Scripture. The RCC has added this and a great deal more to the Bible's simple message of faith in Christ, granted to us by God's grace. It is your group's "traditional views" added to the Scriptures which we have no obligation to accept.

In the end we all shall see whether this was simply a harmless exercise or deadly.