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.

 

[metmom]

Any argument you have against that Scripture you have against God and Paul, who wrote it, not smvoice or metmom who simply pointed out the TRUTH contained in Scripture that is spelled out clearly and plainly for anyone to read who wants.

Nobody is forcing you to believe it, but to continue to deny it sure cuts into your credibility.

[metmom]

And these people teach bible to little kids (and adults)...

Not so much, really. They teach the Catechism of the Catholic church to kids and adults.

[Natural Law]

"Is that the best you can do????"

The answer is completely up to you. The sufficiency will be determined on whether you can answer his challenge or not.

[wardaddy]

I prefer KJV as well

I remember when the Living Bible came out in late 60s or 1970...easier to read but less character and texture...I think the Revised Standard was already around but we never used it...the Living Bible did make headway

very few churches use KJV anymore except for special verses and usually with Strongs along too if the words have more special than usual signficance...at least in my Southern Baptist church

Willaim Tyndale must feel vindicated after such a brutal execution

[Natural Law]

"Any argument you have against that Scripture you have against God and Paul, who wrote it,"

You are giving St. Paul too much credit. CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Know-nothing ersatz Christians happen to me often.” <<

.
The only thing that could cause that is if you are dividing every 60 seconds like an amoeba.
.

[Natural Law]

"Willaim Tyndale must feel vindicated after such a brutal execution."

Tyndale was executed for political, not theological reasons. He was a proponent of Unconditional election, with himself among the elect, and had challenged the Divine right of rule by the established powers of Europe, his own King Henry VIII chief among them. Tyndale's last words were directed to Henry VIII, not the Pope or the Catholic Church.

That said, Tyndale's Bible was full of other errors and heresies too. Simply ask yourself this question; if it were a valid, inerrant production of Scripture why are there no Protestant Churches using it today?

[GonzoII]

"I prefer KJV as well"

At the link there are some interesting comparisons from other Bibles with the KJV:

http://www.tmbible.com/BWCcitations.htm

[MarkBsnr]

>> “Know-nothing ersatz Christians happen to me often.” <<

. The only thing that could cause that is if you are dividing every 60 seconds like an amoeba. .

I would like you to identify an amoeba that reproduces every 60 seconds. It would seem that biology, much like theology, is a subject beyond your ken.

Would you be able to calculate the percentage of times that Paul went to the Jews instead of Gentiles? Or shall we add simple mathematics to the list as well?

[MarkBsnr]

Any argument you have against that Scripture you have against God and Paul, who wrote it, not smvoice or metmom who simply pointed out the TRUTH contained in Scripture that is spelled out clearly and plainly for anyone to read who wants.

I have no argument with either God or Paul. I have an argument with those who would elevate the words of a bishop of the Church above the words of God. Anyone who follows Paul to the exclusion of Jesus Christ is not Christian. It is exemplified in various heresies identified during the first millennium after Christ.

Nobody is forcing you to believe it, but to continue to deny it sure cuts into your credibility.

Let's look at whose credibility is in question. Anyone who produces prose to the effect that disagreement with them equals disagreement with God has effectively lost the argument.

[smvoice]

"Anyone who follows Paul to the exclusion of Jesus Christ is not Christian."

Actually, you DO seem to have an argument with BOTH God and Paul. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "follow Paul to the exclusion of Jesus Christ", Mark.

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN TO THEM WHICH SHOULD HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM TO LIFE EVERLASTING." 1 Tim. 1:1.

So..what do you do with this Scripture? Paul says, through the Holy Spirit, that Paul would be a pattern to those who should believe on Jesus Christ to life everlasting. Not only that, but that in Paul FIRST would Christ shew forth ALL LONGSUFFERING. To those HEREAFTER...HEREAFTER WHAT?? HEREAFTER PAUL.

Can it be any clearer? Jesus Christ had mercy on Paul, Paul is the pattern for us to follow as he followed Christ. Not Peter and the 11. You would be following them and their gospel of the Kingdom, which is to Israel, and which is in abeyance now, until the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in.

Those who are in heresy situations are those who are using PETER and the 11 as patterns to follow to life everlasting. According to Jesus Christ. You may not like what you read, but that doesn't change the truth of God's word. You follow the wrong pattern, you end up in deceit and heresy. Paul is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during this age of grace, the Church the Body of Christ. Peter is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during the age of the law, His earthly ministry, and the Millennial Kingdom, the Millenial Church.

It's no wonder some cannot tell others just what the gospel is, if works are part of salvation, if Christ is going to literally return to this earth, if they are "spiritual Israel", what "Upon this rock" means, if there are priests today, whether men can forgive sins, and on and on. They are following a pattern for another: ISRAEL. And NOT the pattern for the Body of Christ.

ANd the only way to grope out of the maze they have created for themselves is to depend on traditions, doctrines of men, fables, and volumes and volumes of man's supposed "brilliance" to shore up their beliefs. Because the pattern Christ gave them to follow during this time is ignored for a pattern that belongs to someone else. It's like your wife making you a suit following the pattern she has for her favorite dress.

[Natural Law]

"Those who are in heresy situations are those who are using PETER and the 11 as patterns to follow to life everlasting."

I can't imagine where you got that idea. We Catholics, as Christians, more specifically as the first Christians, follow the pattern of Jesus to become more Christ-like as revealed to us by the Tradition and the Scripture by the St. Paul, the Eleven, and the Saints. This is what we mean by "conversion".

[Iscool]

Of course Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, but so too the other 11 and hundreds of more Disciples.

No...He was THE apostle to the Gentiles...Peter and the other apostles were commissioned to seek out and preach to the Jews...Why do you guys keep ignoring the scriptures???

Oh, I know why...It's a Peter/pope thing, isn't it...

[Natural Law]

"No...He was THE apostle to the Gentiles..."

Surely you are not implying that none of the other Apostles preached the word to any non-Jews are you? There is way too much Scriptural and historical evidence to the contrary.

The point of the ministries of all of the Apostles, St. Paul included, was to eliminate the differences between Jew and Gentile, not to institutionalize and perpetuate them.

[Iscool]

I have no argument with either God or Paul.

Yes you do...

I have an argument with those who would elevate the words of a bishop of the Church above the words of God.

None of the apostles were bishops...Just as no bishops have ever been apostles...

You apparently then figure Jesus was done speaking when he ascended to heaven...You also apparently do not beleive that Jesus continued to reveal his plan to and thru the apostle Paul even tho the scriptures tell us otherwise...And that Peter recognized those new revelations as scripture...

It is exemplified in various heresies identified during the first millennium after Christ.

As it turns out, the only heretical religion in the bunch was the one you are affiliated with; the accuser of the brethren...

[boatbums]

I have an argument with those who would elevate the words of a bishop of the Church above the words of God.

I'm surprised that Markbsnr is still saying words to the effect that Paul's Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures are somehow inferior to the words of Jesus Christ that the SAME Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers to record. It is especially surprising seeing as Natural Law posted the "official" Roman Catholic doctrine about Holy Scripture that state what we are contending, that ALL Scripture has as its author the same Holy Spirit. To refresh your memory, Mark, here is the content of CCC 105:

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

Can we hope that this is the last time "some" Catholics go against their own Catechism by insisting that "words of a bishop of the Church" should be held as inferior to the words of Jesus Christ? That "bishop", spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and, as such, EVERYTHING he said in those books are EQUAL to the words of Christ because they ARE the words of Christ.

[Iscool]

The point of the ministries of all of the Apostles, St. Paul included, was to eliminate the differences between Jew and Gentile, not to institutionalize and perpetuate them.

Not initially...Not til after the Jews rejected their Messiah and killed him...It wasn't revealed to Peter by Jesus for some time after Jesus was killed...

Initially in the ministry of Jesus, there was a huge difference between Jew and Gentile...

Eventually the point was to bring all to the knowledge of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, WHERE there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, in Christ...And that was to make the Jews, God's chosen, jealous of the Gentiles, to provoke them (the Jews) to come to him...

[Iscool]

Amen...

[editor-surveyor]

Drinking while posting again?

[metmom]

I have an argument with those who would elevate the words of a bishop of the Church above the words of God.

Oh? You mean like the pope, the magisterium, and *Holy Tradition* trumping the God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God?

Yeah, I have a problem with that as well, which is part of the reason I no longer identify as a Catholic.

Anyone who follows Paul to the exclusion of Jesus Christ is not Christian.

No argument there. But seeing as nobody is doing that, I don't see the point in bringing it up; it's certainly not relevant to the discussion.

Anyone who produces prose to the effect that disagreement with them equals disagreement with God has effectively lost the argument.

Is someone making that claim that you bring that red herring up?