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]

If it could be demonstrated to you that you had free will choice, would you believe it is true?

>>>And I’m sure God won’t mind me plagurizing Romans 7:18-25.

If you decided He did would you then choose not to?

[D-fendr]

What Paul is explaining is that we sometimes, for some most often, choose instinctual pleasures when we know they are bad for us. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t.

Sometimes it is lack of knowledge, sometimes it is a habit. Man, unlike animals can over-ride instincts, sometimes.

We can also resist habitual actions long enough to build new habits which results in needing less self-control to resist instinctual pleasures. And the reverse, we can build bad habits. As the old man said “If you ride with the Devil enough times, sooner or later, he’s gonna wanna take the wheel.”

We are not perfect, but neither are we without choices. We do not have perfect self-control, but we can choose to improve it. We do not have perfect knowledge, but we can seek more. Different folks have different circumstances and abilities, but, given a reasonably sound mind, humans have a wider range of choices than, say, animals, who have none.

Your black and white world applies to animals who have no consciousness. But we are made in God’s image.

Not God by any stretch, but not pure animal either.

[D-fendr]

I should add, though hopefully it’s understood, that all of this is with God’s grace.

There is a relationship between man and God that is beyond that of the other animals. For example, animals bear no responsibility.

In your theology how is any man responsible for any of his/her choices?

[HarleyD]

I believe the Westminster Confession makes it clear that salvation of the elect is most certainly not based on anything we would recognize as 'just'.

How can the pots say to the potter, "Why have you made me this way?"

But that is irrelevant in terms of election, yes? God decides that before we are born.

I would suggest that our election is subservient to God's plan. It wasn't because Noah decided to follow God that mankind was saved. It was because it was God's plan to spare mankind that Noah was made righteous before God.

How is your answer different than: "Fate." ?

Fate is a predetermined course of events. This isn't what I'm saying at all. We are here. We are evil, stubborn and wicked. Our predetermined course without any intervention would be self destruction. We would be like Sodom.

God, OTOH, in His grace and mercy constantly intervenes and controls the affairs of man in spite of ourselves to accomplish His will. His will is to save some of us in spite of us.

Have you not read about how when Aaron and Marian confronted Moses about being so hotsy-totsy with God, God called them out and Marian became a leopard (at least for a week)? God told them that it is He that chooses who to talk to and who His leaders will be. We somehow still like to think that we can tell God who is in command. We don't determine our destiny nor are we driven to our destiny by fate. If it were not for God's constant intervention one could probably make that claim.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You left off the good part:

Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

We love the darkness and hate the light. We can only "love" the light if God puts that in us. Sadly, if we were there on the day of Christ's cruxcifixtion we would be among those disciples who would desert Him in darkest hour.

Can you choose to believe in Him? Are you only posting what you have no choice but to say? Could you change your mind and your theology?

I did change my mind and theology. I was wrong. I'm not wrong now.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don’t believe my answer is confusing. Think about it.

[HarleyD]

He could, and would be perfectly righteous in doing anything......and yet He doesn't.

It's only a matter of time.

Mankind is unique among the mortal creatures because of the knowledge of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and the accompanying free will.

I have come to the conclusion that the tree of knowledge didn't really do a thing. Adam's fall came before they ate the fruit for that is when they disobeyed God. All the fruit did was to illuminate the fact that their nature was such that they were capable of disobeying God. And so with the first command they set forth on the world's destructive path. And, if we truly believe that every command that comes from God is for our benefit, then God's command not to eat of the tree was for their benefit and they didn't care in their best interest.

Adam's will is no different then our own. His will was to do the things that do not help us. So is it with our will. God is out to essentially save mankind from itself and in the process teach us that we need to rely solely upon Him.

[D-fendr]

God is out to essentially save mankind from itself and in the process teach us that we need to rely solely upon Him.

How can you teach a being which cannot do otherwise to do otherwise?

[HarleyD]

We can also resist habitual actions long enough to build new habits which results in needing less self-control to resist instinctual pleasures. And the reverse, we can build bad habits.

So sin is a habit???? Our Lord Jesus saw the human condition differently:

Mat 7:11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Joh 2:24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people

We are not perfect, but neither are we without choices.

We have choices. We by nature choose to do evil things because it is in our hearts. That is why we are not perfect. And God commands perfection.

[MarkBsnr]

We have choices. We by nature choose to do evil things because it is in our hearts. That is why we are not perfect. And God commands perfection.

And how does the Calvinist suggest that that occurs? The Catholic accepts the Grace of God in order to come as close as he can, and accept God's Judgement as to who he did with the gifts of God ie the parable of the talents.

What does the Calvinist do and why should he do it?

[D-fendr]

I did change my mind and theology.

You changed your mind. Hmm. That's called exercising free will choice.

I was wrong.

And when you realized it, evaluated what you think to be true, you decided to choose differently.

I'm not wrong now.

I feel fairly safe in saying: you didn't think you were wrong before either.

This discussion is an illustration of us evaluating facts, experiences, alternatives, values, logic and then exercising free will choice.

I feel like I'm trying to convince you that you are breathing while you're quite busy inhaling and exhaling.

:)

[D-fendr]

Think about it.

What is the purpose of thinking about it if I do not have free will? Are you telling me to choose to think about it; and choose a particular method of thinking to arrive at a conclusion? And then to choose the most appealing conclusion based on a choice of criteria? Surely not! :)

I don’t believe my answer is confusing.

I'm not saying it's confusing; because I don't think you chose to be confusing in your reply. I think you are sincerely communicating.

No, I'm watching you exercise your free will choices by asking for your mental processes, evaluations, conclusions and choices along the way. And then choose to communicate with me about them.

[D-fendr]

So sin is a habit????

You missed an "also" in my reply. But some sin can have a strong element of habit. Smoking is an obvious example. There is an old wise saying of some truth: 'that which you feed grows; that which you starve dies.'

We do have some degree of choice in what we feed and what we starve, with God's grace. Don't you agree?

[HarleyD]

The Catholic accepts the Grace of God in order to come as close [sic: to goodness] as he can, and accept God's Judgement

This isn't what the scriptures tells us.

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Our hearts before we're saved are evil. Every thought. Every time. And it doesn't stop after we become Christians. It just slows down but never does it goes away. The difference is in this post-Israel age is that the Holy Spirit begins to directs our paths to create good works in and through us so that we may bring glory to the Father. Prior to the Holy Spirit being inside us, with a very few exception, good works were primarily God working externally with an individual (e.g. God talking to Moses, God talking to Abraham, etc).

We just don't like the thought that we are, at the core, indeed wicked and corrupt people. We like to take the credit of our good works, but really they come from God's Holy Spirit for without Christ, we can do nothing.

[HarleyD]

You changed your mind. Hmm. That's called exercising free will choice.

Or perhaps the Holy Spirit enlightened me for such a time as this. ;O)

And when you realized it, evaluated what you think to be true,

No. I went back and read the entire Bible with the Reformed perspective. There wasn't anything to evaluate. The pieces that I couldn't put together for 33 years simply fell into place.

I feel fairly safe in saying: you didn't think you were wrong before either.

Actually, here is a little secret. For 33 years I knew something was not right in what I was being told by just about everyone-that we were free to choose to follow Christ. And the reason I knew this was wrong was simply because I was not saved by making a decision. God simply dropped the scales from my eyes and I saw what I actually was. No one asked me to make a decision. No one even knew that I had became a Christian except for me.

For 33 years I have wondered why if I can choose to do good things, why don't I do good things all the time? Why not make those right decisions? Why not be obedient to God's commands? Why not be like Christ if it is my choice? Why did God put the tree in the garden and Adam, knowing all that he would lose, ate of it?

Quite frankly, there isn't a good answer for this other than the Reformed view. And it shows in people's theology. I have read numerous commentaries and comments of people simply declaring it a mystery. Well, it's not. It's very simple. And the more I read and understand, the more simplistic the scriptures become.

[MarkBsnr]

The Catholic accepts the Grace of God in order to come as close [sic: to goodness] as he can, and accept God's Judgement

This isn't what the scriptures tells us.

That's what Jesus and Paul tell us.

Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

1 Corinthians 11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ

And we must accept God's Grace.

2 Corinthians 6: 1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that you receive not the grace of God in vain.

[D-fendr]

I marvel as you continue to exhibit what you hold does not exist. I appreciate your testimony, but am almost unable to keep from asking: why did you choose to tell me this?

Quite frankly, there isn't a good answer for this other than the Reformed view.

You need to get out more. :)

If the view includes salvation by election and denial of free will, the flaws bring the whole thing down.

Back to our original point, I don't think the criteria "makes more sense to Harley" is a valid one for me accepting your view. But if that's your choice..

I'm gone for a while. As always, it's great to see you on a thread.

And thank you for choosing to participate in this discussion. :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, Harley.

God

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Lol. Both are wrong???

You clearly do not understand Arminianism. It is the same as Catholicism. “I choose freely...”

And your slogans are correct only if you think your t-shirt is God.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

My “free will choices” were determined by God from before the foundation of the world.

Amazing, eh? Either that or God is simply a spectator who occasionally steps in and sorts things out.

Not a very comforting thought.
I prefer the God of the Scriptures. His world. His creation. His outcome.

Thank God. Try living one day with that thought uppermost. When you have a moral decision, tell yourself God has chosen righteousness for you. Just try it.

Or argue against it and never really understand.

[HarleyD]

That's what Jesus and Paul tell us.... Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. 1 Corinthians 11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ

Shoot, you can go back farther than that. God was constantly telling the Israelites that they were to be holy to the Lord. Fat lot of good it did them.

Yes, we are to imitate Christ. But the power to imitate Christ comes from the Holy Spirit who gives faiths and gifts in various measures. So it is not by our strength that we do anything. As our Lord stated, "Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And as Paul stated, "I can do all things in him [sic:Christ] (Phil 4:13) who strengthens me." We are to encourage one another to good works, but those good works are the results of God's Spirit choosing to work through us. We submit to God but it is only because God helps us to submit to Him.

Remember Augustine's prayer, "Command what you will, and grant what you command."