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.

 

[Mr Rogers]

“Since you are dealing with translations of translations of translations you cannot establish that the passages from the Deuterocanonicals that are thematically the same as the Gospels did not arise as quotes. “

No. You do not find, “It is written...”, or, “As the Prophets spoke...” and then a quote from the Apocrypha. Doesn’t happen.

And most Protestants use translations from the Greek, not translations of translations of translations. We aren’t the ones who say a translation (the Vulgate) is better than the original...

“In fact, St. Jerome wound up strenuously defended the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, writing in Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]; “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”

Taken out of context.

“Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

“In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.”

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Apocrypha

“How many of these have you studied to conclude that a pronouncement was issued ex nihilo (from nothing) to fill a gap in Catholic teaching?”

I did not say Trent discussed the canon with nothing before it. However, there had been no Ecumenical Council giving official judgment on the subject. Had there been, then no one would have written the Pope to tell him the Apocrypha wasn’t good for doctrine...

Although maybe they could have. Arguably, the Council of Trent left open the idea of a dual-track canon, with some scripture good for doctrine, and other scriptures that are not. And that is why I pointed out that scripture says ALL scripture is good for training and teaching and correction...

[Dutchboy88]

Now if the RCC could only get their doctrines to comport with the Scriptures that they lay claim to, you guys would not be in such danger. Papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, mariolatry, sacraments, making of signs, and most of the other baggage added by Rome is nowhere to be found in the Book your clubhouse wants to own.

[Natural Law]

"I believe the Jews in general reject the idea that the Apocrypha is inspired."

Is that an inerrant belief or a belief based upon Protestant tradition? In the first century there was a Pharisee canon, a Sadducee canon, an Essene canon and the Septuagint canon. Which of these represented the true and proper canon agreed to by all Jews "in General" and which by Greek speaking Jews?

[RobbyS]

Chief among the “contested: books was probably “Revelation,” which many Protestants make a hobby horse. Some speak of them as intertestemental, When was a Protestant, I wondered what happened during the hundreds of years before Christ not reported in the KJB. Hard to make proper sense of the New Testament without reading these works.

[RobbyS]

Certainly the chief Lutheran dogma is not there: that the testimony of popes, councils, and church fathers did not trump the scholarship of Doctor Luther, or even that of Dutchboy 88.

[RobbyS]

The Protestants of the 16th century knew almost nothing about the Judaism of the First Century and assumed that the Jews they knew were the same as the Pharisees Our Lord knew,

[what's up]

In the first century there was a Pharisee canon, a Sadducee canon, an Essene canon and the Septuagint canon

No, they did not all have canons. And none proclaimed the Apocrypha to be an inspired part of a canon.

[MarkBsnr]

"As an armchair quarterback, I'd simply compare each heresy of Protestantism to the teachings of Simon Magus and go from there."

Mark, you are not suppose to pass the Vatican cheat codes unencrypted in an unsecured forum.

I'm awfully sorry...

[jjotto]

Christian historians make up a lot of strange stuff about “the Jewish canon”. I’m reminded of the fact that until a few years ago the English Soncino Chumash/Tanakh could be found in almost all American synagogues. No doubt in the future some Christian historian will claim it was ‘canon’ to American Jews.

[MarkBsnr]

[Mr Rogers]

“Josephus writes that the canon consisted of the five books of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets and four of what he referred to as hymns to God and precepts for human life. It is clear that this perspective was one held for a long time by the Jews, who considered these twenty-two books alone to be of divine origin and were careful to preserve the integrity and number of them. In fact, so great was their veneration of these books, they were willing to die for them. Surely, such a commitment implies a conviction that these books alone were truly canonical. In addition, it is clear that the canon referred to by Josephus did not include the books of the Apocrypha, and that he considered the canon to be closed. He states that the twenty-two books were written in the specific span of time from Moses to Artaxerxes and no books written after this time were considered inspired. He mentions other books written after the prophets, which were not considered by the Jews to carry the same authority, that is, they were not inspired and were, therefore, not canonical. This is a clear reference to a number of the Apocryphal books. John Wenham summarizes the importance of Josephus and his writings:

Josephus, born about AD 37, was perhaps the most distinguished and most learned Jew of his day. His father was a priest and his mother was descended from the Maccabean kings. Given the best possible education, he proved to be something of a prodigy…What is particularly interesting about the statement of Josephus is the clear distinction between the canonical books which were completed in the time of Artaxerxes, and those written later which were not considered worthy of like credit ‘because the exact succession of the prophets ceased’. The idea evidently is that the canonical books were either written (or accredited) by the prophets, but that when the prophetical era was over, no more books suitable for the Canon were written…Josephus commits himself to a fairly precise date for the closing of the Canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned for forty years, 465 to 425 BC. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh, and Nehemiah in the twentieth, year of his reign (Ez. 7:1, 8; Ne. 2:1). In addition to Josephus there are several other witnesses who point to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with occasionally a reference to the ministries of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as the time of the collection, completion and recognition of the Old Testament Canon.28

F.F. Bruce explains how the precise books can be inferred from Josephus’ statements:

When Josephus speaks of twenty-two books, he probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is impossible to be sure, because he does not specify the books of the three divisions one by one. It is unlikely that Josephus’ classification of the books was his own; he probably reproduces a tradition with which he had been familiar for a long time, having learned it either in the priestly circle into which he was born or among the Pharisees with whose party he associated himself as a young man.29

Ryle offers this additional observation:

He records a test of their canonicity. He mentions the standard which, apparently, in current Jewish opinion, all books satisfied that were included in the Canon. No historical writings, it seems, belonged to it which were deemed to have been composed later than the reign of Ahasuerus. The mention of this particular limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the book of Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew book of Esther) figures. Thus we learn that a popularly accepted test, that of date of composition, however erroneously applied, determined the question of canonicity. In the first cent. A.D., the impression prevailed that the books of the Canon were all ancient, that none were more recent than Ahasuerus, and that all had long been regarded as canonical. The same limit of date, although not so clearly applied to the poetical books, was, in all probability, intended to apply equally to them, since they combined with the books of the prophets to throw light upon the same range of history. That such a standard of canonicity as that of antiquity should be asserted, crude as it may seem, ought to be sufficient to convince us that the limits of the Canon had for a long time been undisturbed.30

Jerome, famous for translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin, was intent on translating only those books deemed canonical by the Jews. He not only bears witness to the threefold traditional classification of the Hebrew Bible, but also to which books comprised each category. His list is essentially the same as that inferred from Josephus’ writings. The specific books he lists are:

1) The Law of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
2) The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets.
3) The Hagiographa: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther.31”

“Josephus divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called ‘hymns to God and precepts for human life,’ also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa.”

http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart1.html

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” - Jesus Christ

Notice Jesus gives 3 sections, as did Josephus: “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” or “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called ‘hymns to God and precepts for human life,’.

When Jesus said, ““34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar”, he also described the canon.

In the Jewish scriptures, the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah (2 Chronicles 24) came at the end. Thus Able to Zechariah the son of Barachiah covered from the first boo0k in order to the last book, in order. Front to back. The statement of Jesus only makes sense if the Jewish canon, and the order of the books, was established, known and accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Ketuvim

[Mr Rogers]

Ping to post 71.

[what's up]

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” - Jesus Christ Notice Jesus gives 3 sections, as did Josephus: “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” or “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called ‘hymns to God and precepts for human life,’.

Interesting...thanks.

Thus Able to Zechariah the son of Barachiah covered from the first boo0k in order to the last book, in order. Front to back. The statement of Jesus only makes sense if the Jewish canon, and the order of the books, was established, known and accepted.

Also interesting.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Just read Josephus’ works.

[MarkBsnr]

I believe the Jews in general reject the idea that the Apocrypha is inspired.

The Jews regard Christians as renegade heretics. The mythical Council of Jamnia was supposed to deal with the Jewish repudiation of Christianity.

[MarkBsnr]

Now if the RCC could only get their doctrines to comport with the Scriptures that they lay claim to, you guys would not be in such danger.

Actually, we're not in danger, but thanks for asking. We are completely compliant with Scripture, unlike the various inventions of men that litter the landscape.

Papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, mariolatry, sacraments, making of signs, and most of the other baggage added by Rome is nowhere to be found in the Book your clubhouse wants to own.

I'd spend some time investigating the OT if I want to understand the various rituals that the Catholic Church follows. It may prove illuminating. Jesus did not do away with everything that the Jews practiced, you know.

[what's up]

Post #56...there are other reasons the Jews generally have refrained from embracing the Apocrypha as inspired.

[Dutchboy88]

"I'd spend some time investigating the OT if I want to understand the various rituals that the Catholic Church follows. It may prove illuminating. Jesus did not do away with everything that the Jews practiced, you know."

Ah, here is where we part company, my FRiend. Jesus fulfilled the Law and, in fact, it was done away with.

Gal. 3:21ff: Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who JOIN THE RCC (oops, I mean "believe"). But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by THE THINGS DICTATED BY ROME (oops, I mean "faith"). But now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR. For you are all sons of God through ADHERANCE TO ROME'S DOCTRINES (oops, I mean "faith in Christ Jesus")."

Where are all of these baggage items again? The RCC is the modern day Judaizer turning faith into Law. Such is not the New Covenant.

[Dutchboy88]

Ping to 78

[Natural Law]

"Josephus writes..."

I simply cannot accept Josephus as inerrant or completely authoritative when he is in conflict with the Early Church Fathers such as the Greek era St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, St. Melito of Sardis, and Origen and the later Latin era Tertullian, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. I also do not accept an ex post facto closing of the Hebrew Canon in the late 2nd century done to address the Christian heresy.

Like the last 600 years of Christian history Catholics are going to maintain the orthodoxy of the Apostolic Tradition and Protestants are going to argue a heterodoxy. I also do not accept any arguments that either Protestants or Catholics cannot know and love Jesus because of differences in doctrine.