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.

 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen. Christ died for our sins and was resurrected to prove it all true.

The empty cross is the triumphant cross of those who, like Christ, are more than conquerors. The debt has been paid. We are free. Our eternal liberty has been won by our King and Savior.

[Natural Law]

"The empty cross is the triumphant cross of those who, like Christ, are more than conquerors."

What is to be gained by chest thumping over the choice of the symbols we choose to celebrate the same Sacrifice and Resurrection? Wouldn't your time be better spent working to oust pro-abortion candidates, feeding the needy or securing the right of religious liberty to all?

[boatbums]

One only need ask why so many who so sincerely believe and earnestly seek His Truth arrive at different interpretations and conclusions to have doubts about that.

We have addressed this in the past and it should be apparent that there are tenets of the faith that are "inviolate" and others, non-essential doctrines, that are more flexible. For example, the doctrine of Jesus Christ being Almighty God incarnate is one of the most central of all Christian doctrines and those who hold to beliefs counter to this can be said to not be true Christians. However, on the subject of which day an assembly meets to worship together, we have Scripture that indicates this is an optional belief, see Romans 14:5. There ARE major tenets of the Christian faith that are NOT optional and where a faith tradition veers away from these clearly defined (in Scripture) beliefs, they are in error.

So, when Martin Luther, as well as many others, found fault with the how and what of the established religious hierarchy, he felt strongly moved to seek to restore them BACK to orthodoxy - that established by the Apostles as revealed in Holy Scripture. Again, I have no qualms about there being a teaching authority established to keep the church as a whole on the straight and narrow, but it should be always understood that the ultimate authority IS Scripture. That is essentially what the term sola scriptura means.

A point of clarification; the Church teaches that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are inerrant. The Pope, only under very limited conditions is infallible. There have been no instances of the Church changing a dogma or doctrine, although practices have changed. I have never found any errors in doctrines or dogmas. I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

There MUST be an ultimate authority that supercedes human fallibility. You cannot have Divinely-inspired Scripture held equal to the human influence. What is called "tradition" by the Roman Catholic Church has come to mean anything and everything THEY deem as truth "handed down verbally" from the Apostles, yet there is no question that whatever the Apostles taught HAS BEEN recorded in Holy Scripture precisely so that the truth God intended for the church to know is preserved. Oral tradition is, by its nature, subject to a level of decay over time and anything not written down, cannot be held equal to Scripture that we know has been handed down from God.

From http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html:

The Protestant never denied the principle of apostolic tradition or oral instruction. It’s just that oral transmission suffers from a high decay rate. Word-of-mouth may be adequate when it comes straight from the mouth of an Apostle to the ear of a contemporary. But there’s a categorical difference between the viva voce of the Apostles and a "process of living Tradition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶83.). Oral tradition is no substitute for a permanent record. It was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. That’s precisely why revelation was committed to writing (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 31:9,13,26; Ps 102:18; Isa 30:8). Human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. The rediscovery of the written law code (2 Kgs 22:8ff. 2 Chron 34:14ff.) powerfully illustrates the inadequacies of unaided memory in keeping a people from apostasy—a point made by R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1986), 66. To take another example, (a) Papias was, according to Irenaeus, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John. He made an earnest effort to collect the agrapha of Christ. Yet despite his proximity to primitive recollection, his gleanings are remarkably meager, and have an unmistakably derivative flavor. Owing to the short shelf-life of oral tradition, as well as the incentive to fabricate tradition (e.g. the NT apocrypha), no formal authority attaches to mere tradition, although some of it may afford probative evidence for past practice.

Moreover, Sacred Tradition, as currently redefined, is not the same as an oral mode of transmission. It ceases to be a conservative force and becomes a revisionary dynamic. Again, Jesus warns us against the dangers of man-made tradition, and judges that tradition by the standard of Scripture (Mt 7:7-8,13). But when human tradition comes to be identified with a divine teaching office, it is then impervious to the correction of Scripture, and we’re right back to the situation that summoned forth our Lord’s reproof.

[MarkBsnr]

What in the name of pete are you talking about?

Christianity as practiced by Christians for 2000 years.

Do you not understand that Christ has a CONTINUING mission, even in His absence on earth? Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

My belief is that He left His Church here on earth to continue the mission that He gave to them. Not that any Tom, Dick or Darby can interpret novelties on their own and demand that it replace traditional Christianity as given to us from the Apostles who received it from Jesus Christ, the Lord God Almighty.

And BTW, Christ's death on the cross for OUR SINS, His burial, and His resurrection for our salvation is the pinnacle of God's word and reconciliation to man. It is ALL about the Cross. Without that, nothing else matters.

Odd, that statement. You guys object to the Crucifix, yet you preach that the Cross is the be all and end all of things.

We preach Christ Resurrected and Ascended; the Crucifix is a daily reminder of the price that Jesus bore for us. We do not preach the death of Christ (which by itself has no salvation). His death is for our sins. His Resurrection is for our everlasting life.Do you believe that Christ paid the FULL penalty for your inability?

Without Christ there is no salvation. Without His death, Resurrection and Ascension, we do not have His promise to us. But we do. We must accept it or else we do not have salvation. However, there are conditions. Those are found in both the Gospels and in Paul.

Unless, like the Calvinists, you believe in self-declaration of salvation which God must honour.

[MarkBsnr]

A while back I entered into Diaconate formation which caused me to examine my entire life. I saw what participation in the Religion Forum was doing to me and the kind of person the repeated exposure to the corrosive comments was making me become and I didn't like what I saw.

There are the footsoldiers for Christ who become ungentle in their vocations.

I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me. If I walked away from FR I had to be prepared to walk away from the whole world and that would be counter to the mission of the Diaconate, which is to serve God and His Church by serving the Gospel, the Liturgy and Charity.

You have surpassed me, my friend. May God bless us all.

[MarkBsnr]

No man has all the answers. Calvin was more correct than Arminius.

That's like saying that Hitler was more correct than Stalin.

[MarkBsnr]

Post 449 was so far off the mark I’m not sure where one would start.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

[Natural Law]

"There are the footsoldiers for Christ who become ungentle in their vocations."

God bless them if it works for them, but that approach just doesn't work for me. It more often than no hardens hearts and even when it doesn't I feel terrible.

"You have surpassed me, my friend."

Please do not read more into me than I deserve. When I compare myself to the saints I see how terribly flawed I am and how much further I have to go in my conversion. I only hope that some light shines through dirty and broken windows.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Christianity has more than one enemy.

There is only one truth.

[Natural Law]

"So, when Martin Luther, as well as many others, found fault with the how and what of the established religious hierarchy, he felt strongly moved to seek to restore them BACK to orthodoxy - that established by the Apostles as revealed in Holy Scripture."

No one but God knows what was in Martin Luther's heart. He has been praised by Pope Benedict XVI for his deep passion and for being a "driving force" in his beliefs, but I am convinced that Luther was deeply troubled by the unintended consequences of his actions. As for Sola Scriptura we will have to continue to disagree because without a Magisterium the original meaning is still left to fallible men (and women).

Maranatha

[Natural Law]

"Christianity has more than one enemy."

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, it is not His enemy. The real enemies are a threat to us all.

[presently no screen name]

"WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!" Jesus commanded, and St. Paul reminded, to treat each other with love and respect, not ridicule, scorn and derision.

Show where WOW WOW WOW is ridicule and scorn and derision. I'll save you the trouble, can't be done. But I will show you what IS.......

RIDICULE...... SCORN...... DERISION.

the cross itself was nothing special.

JESUS GAVE UP His sinless life to become sin for all on THE CROSS.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome.

NO Christian EVER looks to another or Rome when looking/remembering THE CROSS! The BLOOD shed on THE CROSS saves - The POWER of The BLOOD! Shed ONCE for all.

It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.,

Anyone who thinks 'they/themselves' didn't put Jesus on the cross cannot receive salvation. Salvation for what? The other guy/Roman Empire did it.

Some look for love in the wrong places. Go to the pagans to fulfill 'the love and respect' you seek with such RIDICULE of the Cross, SCORNFUL and DERISION statements which must stem from deep seated anger and contempt of The CROSS.

The PEACE lives within me 24/7 and I celebrate HIS RESURRECTION EVERY DAY.

It is ALL ABOUT JESUS!

It is ALL About THE CROSS!

Now that IS the LOVE I SHARE! There is NO GREATER LOVE!

[presently no screen name]

without a Magisterium

Without the HOLY SPIRIT living within our temple.

[Natural Law]

"Now that IS the LOVE I SHARE! "

I cannot know what is in your heart, but neither can you know what is in mine. We can only look for the evidence, the fruits of the Holy Spirit because where those fruits are absent so too is the Holy Spirit absent. Examine yourself and your conscience and look for the fruits in your conduct towards those whom you cannot accuse of not loving God, but rather accuse of not loving Him as you deem appropriate.

"For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load."- Galatians 6:3-5

[presently no screen name]

lets share common ground and rejoice in the Lord.

This is no common ground with this the cross itself was nothing special.

The last thing Jesus or Mary would want is for this to divide Christendom especially now that it is under attack.

There is NO Christianity WITHOUT the CROSS. Catholics voided it with the cross itself was nothing special. And Christianity is about THE CROSS.

[Natural Law]

The Magisterium is but an instrument of the Holy Spirit as are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

[Natural Law]

"Christianity is about the CROSS....."

Christianity is about the Word made flesh. It is not a death cult, but is about everlasting life.

[presently no screen name]

Nothing new here. You state the cross isn't special - and saying it's a symbol to look on another - and think what 'they' did with their might - shows a TOTAL LACK of ANYTHING Christ!

It's ALL about JESUS! It's ALL about THE CROSS!

I like saying It's ALL about The Cross - Satan can't stand it. It's a reminder to him, he lost and THE VICTORY IS IN JESUS!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CROSS!! JESUS IS THE RESURRECTION. JESUS IS EVERYTHING! It's ALL about JESUS!

Posting Scripture and believing the cross was nothing special. LOL!! What wrong with this picture? Shows 'anyone' can post/read/say/repeat Scripture and IMPRESS NO ONE!!

CHRISTIANITY - IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CROSS!!

[D-fendr]

I’m glad you posted that.

Soon we remember Christ’s passion and celebrate His resurrection.

But without the Incarnation, that incredible, beautiful, miraculous, event that changed all of creation...

[boatbums]

Within Catholic teaching the term "unquestioning obedience" is an oxymoron. The Church defines obedience as:

CCC 144 - To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.

You make it sound as if there are no formal "Profession of Faith" documents or proclamations of anathemas on those who do not obey and hold to those prescribed doctrines with firm and irrevocable assent. Of course today the Roman Catholic Church lacks the temporal power it once held and cannot compel assent by force, but they nonetheless hold the assumed "spiritual" power over those who desire salvation through the Church. They can no longer impose physical punishments on those who reject her teachings, but it doesn't stop them from threatening eternal consequences for those accused of "heresy". This link http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html, does a good job of explaining the real "Cat and Mouse Game" of the Magesterium and its constant need to define and redefine what is Catholic teaching as well as the evolution of the Magesterium. It is not so cut and dried as some would like it portrayed.

Blessings and peace to you, as well.