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.

 

[D-fendr]

thank you for your courteous reply.

I believe Calvin was more correct than Arminius because his theology lines up with Scripture more than Arminius’.

But, again, according to whom?

it was only after he studied Calvinism and Augustine did the Bible make real sense.

After my conversion, the Holy Scriptures made sense to me, for the first time, completely. But not the same way they made sense to Calvin or Harley or, I think, you. Very very differently. So, I think, 'making sense' depends again on according to whom?

and it is the responsibility of the Holly Spirit to lead our understanding of the Bible as we read and study it.

Would it then fall to the Holy Spirit to be responsible for our different understandings?

I don't see this as a workable or practical line of thought for 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism.'

I believe that, too. Reading the Bible with the idea that God is preeminent and has ordained all that exists and occurs clarifies both the good and the bad that happen to us in this life.

I can understand that I think. It does have it's positive points. However, it inescapably leads to God as the author of sin and a god that damns some to eternal torment before they are born. When I reach this end, I know I have made a wrong turn somewhere, no matter how good or useful the turn seems at the time.

[presently no screen name]

JESUS IS THE WORD!!

You 'trying' to tell me what is Christianity is laughable. LOL!! Thanks for the laugh.

CHRISTIANITY IS THE CROSS. JESUS IS THE WORD and The WORD was made flesh and HE came to GIVE His life on THE CROSS.

JESUS IS EVERYTHING!!

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

[D-fendr]

I suspect this won’t have much affect, but I think you’re not seeing Natural Law’s point; which, I hope I can restate correctly.

There were countless others crucified by the Romans. This was not unique.

What is unique is who Christ is and that He rose from the dead.

[presently no screen name]

You are stating what he said. LOL!! So much for your but I think you’re not seeing....

What happened at THE CROSS that didn't happen with countless others crucified by the Romans ?

[presently no screen name]

a thought crossed my mind; if you were arrested tomorrow for being a Christian would there be any evidence to convict you beyond a few anonymous posts?

That THOUGHT that crossed your mind was said twenty years ago and still being said today. NOTHING NEW!!

[D-fendr]

What happened at the cross “ that didn’t happen with countless others crucified by the Romans,” i.e., was unique, is completely because of who Christ is. Not because of the cross or another crucifixion. That’s a repeat of what has been said.

I don’t really see the disagreement here.

[presently no screen name]

What HAPPENED!!

Saying was unique, is completely because of who Christ is is NOT saying what happened at THE CROSS.

[HarleyD]

I believe Calvin was more correct than Arminius because his theology lines up with Scripture more than Arminius’. As Harleyd once said, it was only after he studied Calvinism and Augustine did the Bible make real sense.

Amen Dr. E. And the more I study this the more I understand the Reformed view to be the correct version of the scripture. I was reading through Leviticus the other day and can finally understand it and how it's applicable to us. Now THAT'S a feat!!! :O)

[Natural Law]

"I don’t really see the disagreement here."

Some are very quick to impress their interpretation of Scripture onto others. I would live to see their interpretation and living example of Ephesians Chapter 4:

"Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." - Ephesiams 4:25-32

[Natural Law]

"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."

I find your statement quite confusing. Professions of Faith (Creeds, from the Latin Credo meaning I believe) are a self identifier, not an imposed set of beliefs. They form the the premise of an if, then statement. If one believes as per the Confession of Faith, then one is in Communion with the Catholic Church and is a Catholic. If one does not believe, then they are something else.

"but it doesn't stop them from threatening eternal consequences for those accused of "heresy"."

Again, you are displaying a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. An anathema is not a condemnation. No where in Church doctrine does it say that the Church or anyone other than God can judge anyone's soul. An anathema is a more severe form of banishment from the Church than an excommunication. That said, both an anathema and an excommunication are a pretty good indication and hint that one's actions and beliefs are jeopardizing ones Salvation.

[D-fendr]

he more I understand the Reformed view to be the correct version of the scripture.

But how are we to apply in general to the Church, to one Lord, one faith, one baptism?

Luther was convinced the same, if not more so, about his view being the correct version. As was Zwingli, Darby, Koresh, et al.

Are we to measure who is most convinced and adopt their view as the correct version of scripture? No, of course not. We are left with only each individual tasked to determine exegesis, doctrine and dogma for 'the' Church.

An impossible structure, and an unscriptural one.

thanks for your reply.

[Natural Law]

"Luther was convinced the same, if not more so, about his view being the correct version. As was Zwingli, Darby, Koresh, et al."

Every heresy is predicated upon a sincere belief that ones own interpretation is the right one. How are we to maintain orthodoxy without an authority beyond solus conscientia.

[D-fendr]

Yes, and this, I believe, echoes your comment earlier on Luther's revulsion at the unintended consequences of sola scriptura. He thought everyone would agree with his view of scripture, but..

So we see the reaction in the Augsburg Confession - away from sola scriptura to a creed.

[Natural Law]

"So we see the reaction in the Augsburg Confession..."

Everyone wants a unified Christian Creed, as long as it is their own particular flavor. As a result we have a situation in which 75% or so of all Christians believe in one Creed and the remainder spread across 33,000+ other variations all clamoring that no one else can really love God unless others see it as they do. For too many it is not about what is in the heart, but what is upon the lips.

[HarleyD]

Are we to measure who is most convinced and adopt their view as the correct version of scripture? No, of course not.

This is typically a Catholic answer. Their view is that the authority of the Church tells them the correct view. Of course, Protestants-any Protestant-would disagree.

So how exactly does a person know when they have the "right" view? I believe it is when a person is able to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New. They are one in the same. The God who healed the sick is the same as the one who rain fire on Sodom.

What is really impossible is that people in our "touchy-feely" lives don't want to confront the absolute holiness of God and the evilness (to use Jesus' term) of man's heart. Consequently they cannot understand the scriptures.

Once a person understand that man is driven towards evil and everything God does is simply for us to share in His glory, everything falls into place.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, Professor Harley. Amen.

Nothing is perfect which includes our understanding of God's word. We study to show ourselves approved. We do our best. We learn. We believe. We embrace our faith as the free and generous gift from God that it is.

The RCC demands perfectioiin, doesn't get it anywhere and thus is frustrated and its members confused and less than well-informed. If we read the Bible with spectacles given by God, we're doing the best we can and God is pleased.

It's just not that difficult. God creates and elects; Christ teaches and redeems; the Holy Spirit guides us toward the truth of this life and the next, never leaving us alone or bereft. We believe; therefore we exist.

A perfect plan developed by God, imperfectly carried out by undeserving but grateful human beings.

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. 2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; 3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah. 4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. 5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early." -- Psalm 46:1-5

[HarleyD]

A perfect plan developed by God, imperfectly carried out by undeserving but grateful human beings.

Amen Dr. E. My life verse has always been:

Jer 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

There have been a number of trials that I've had to confront recently. As difficult as it sometimes seems, it is a great comfort that we can rest in God's gracious promise that all things work together for our good. His plan is perfect and best. And while we walk through the valley, He is with us; the Lover and Perfector of our souls.

[D-fendr]

Sounds wonderful, until we get to the part in your theology about those damned to eternal hell before they were born.

[D-fendr]

the authority of the Church tells them the correct view.

That's what we see in scripture. What we do not see in scripture is the teaching that each individual determines what view is right contrary to that authority.

So how exactly does a person know when they have the "right" view? I believe..

I'm afraid this is more individualism. It doesn't answer the question of what happens to church when other individuals are equally convinced of their right view differently from you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Are all men fallen from birth?

Do all men receive the Holy Spirit to guide them to Christ?

Who gives the free unmerited gift of grace through faith that saves a person’s soul?

Besides being anti-Scriptural, Roman Catholicism is illogical.