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.

 

[RobbyS]

Yet in Romans Paul did not say this. The problem is the ambiguous use of “ Law “ in the New Testament. In Romans Paul is not telling the Jews that the Torah is defunct,rather they should keep it but not impose it on the other nations. In Galatians he says something else. Since Romans was written later, ought we not conclude that whatever he said to the Galatians it was not his final word. As to the Reformers use of the term “Law “as an analogy to those Catholic teachings/practices contrary to Dr. Luther’s thoughts on the matter, I take it for what is — his private opinion.

[Mr Rogers]

“I also do not accept any arguments that either Protestants or Catholics cannot know and love Jesus because of differences in doctrine. “

On that, we agree.

[Dutchboy88]

"Yet in Romans Paul did not say this"

Rom. 3:21ff: But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a GIFT BY HIS GRACE through the redemption which is in ROME (oops, "Christ Jesus")." Whether Luther believed this or not is immaterial. What does the Scripture that Rome claims to have given everyone say? Well, evidently it says Rome is wrong.

[Natural Law]

"On that, we agree."

We agree on a whole lot more than that. One of the shortcomings of these forums is that we spend 99% of our time discussing our disagreements. Its like comparing donuts by concentrating on the holes.

[Dutchboy88]

"Since Romans was written later, ought we not conclude that whatever he said to the Galatians it was not his final word."

This all belies the unusual perspective that the RCC holds with regard to the Scriptures, viewing themselves as sitting in judgment. Not even Peter held such arrogant views.

IIPet3:14ff: Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you, as also in ALL HIS LETTERS, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable (ROME) distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Hmmm.

[urtax$@work]

I'll be adding the cross-references to and from the Deuterocanonicals that are not contained in it. -There are quite a few in this version.

??? If it is KJV w/Ap , then why are you adding-- is it missing the Xrefs that KJV-v.1 contained.?

[Cvengr]

It is intellectually dishonest to claim the reason for the omission of the Apocrypha is some type of “antiCatholic” hate speech.

Athanasius excluded those books in 367AD from the Canon even when he presented the list of 27 NT books commonly accepted for the NT today.

While there are numerous lists, they simply are recommended readings, but not considered part of the Canon of Scripture.

Most believers I have observed who are preoccupied with the Apocrypha, also happen to have doubts regarding the canonicity of the more accepted 27 books of the NT. IMHO, if believers have doubts, start with the first 27 books and after mastering and growing through faith in Christ in reading His Word in those books, then continue with others.

[Natural Law]

"It is intellectually dishonest to claim the reason for the omission of the Apocrypha is some type of “antiCatholic” hate speech."

What is intellectually dishonest is to presume that anti-Catholicism played no role in the efforts by the Reformation to undermine the authority of the Church on a broad front that included disputing the canonicity of any books that ran contrary to Reformationist doctrines. It is also equally dishonest to contend that Catholic defense of the full 72 book Canon is based upon anything other than the Apostolic Tradition and early Magisterium that produced the New Testament.

I do realize that nothing I post will accomplish what 500 years of Catholic apologetics has not accomplished, but then again, you won't have much success either.

[Cvengr]

Athenasius didn’t support that view.

The issue, if it is raised, is simply to identify the Canon.

Feel free to provide the justification for the books which are contained within it.

It’s foolish to turn that search into contention.

[RobbyS]

Why not look at the part where he is talking specifically about the Jews. Never does he set himself apart from his people, and the covenant remains final. And exactly what opposition of grace and law, but fulfillment of the original covenant. Israel has once again again broken covenant with the Lord, but HE remains faithful and Israel will be saved through as by fire. “For the gifts and the call of the Lord are irrevocable. Yes, I reject supercessionaism. It is a Christian attitude that IMHO, goes against what Paul says 11:25-36. It is a conceit that has not served the Church well, and in our time has abetted the commission of a monstrous blasphemy.

[Dutchboy88]

"Why not look at the part where he is talking specifically about the Jews. Never does he set himself apart from his people, and the covenant remains final. And exactly what opposition of grace and law, but fulfillment of the original covenant. Israel has once again again broken covenant with the Lord, but HE remains faithful and Israel will be saved through as by fire. “For the gifts and the call of the Lord are irrevocable. Yes, I reject supercessionaism. It is a Christian attitude that IMHO, goes against what Paul says 11:25-36. It is a conceit that has not served the Church well, and in our time has abetted the commission of a monstrous blasphemy."

I have copied this in total because I have no idea what you are getting at. Perhaps you can try again, more clearly this time.

That the Law is gone and Paul happened to be the bearer of that "bad news" for the Jews is precisely what got him into such hot water all the way through Luke's second journal (Acts of the Apostles). The man was hated by Jews who clung to the misunderstanding that the Law represented a means to holiness. When Paul told them it was simply a mirror, a tutor, to explain to them how bad they were and drive them to their knees, they detonated. The irrevocable gifts and calling have nothing to do with the Law.

Certainly, the RCC has errantly taken components of the Law (papalism (chief priest), sacerdotalism (priesthood), sacraments (sacrifices), temples (cathedrals), etc.) and extended them into an age of grace. Jesus prophesied the end of all of this when He said,"...an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth...". When the blood was shed, the curtain was torn and the Law (as anything other than the tutor) faded away. But, the modern day Judaizers love their self-righteousness the way the Jews did then. Here then is a monstrous blasphemy.

[RobbyS]

Of course the law was a means of holiness. It was in fact a grace to the Israelites. Are you saying that what was mandated by God was in fact an instrument of deception by the devil? Of course the intention was to drive them to their knees. What was wrong was that they did not interpret the Law rightly, that they failed to recognize the Messiah when he came. To the extent they continued to keep the law, it did keep them together as a community, to remain faithful to their mission. Paul never stopped acting like a Jew. Neither did the Apostles, although they they had a very different view about it. Stephen pointed out the vanity of it all, but Paul promises that all the Jews would be saved, in the end.

And to the rest, it is ironic that Protestantism has reverted to the forms of the synagogues, with the Gospel now occupying the place of the Torah, and teachers like Luther in place of the rabbis--the successors of the Pharisees (all laymen).

[allmendream]

I overheard on a SF bus over a dozen years ago some crazy lady ranting “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ...”.

That was amusing!

[Pollster1]

I overheard on a SF bus over a dozen years ago some crazy lady ranting “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ...”. That was amusing!

People watching can be fun.

[allmendream]

In San Francisco it is a human safari trip!

Keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times.

[GonzoII]

"??? If it is KJV w/Ap , then why are you adding-- is it missing the Xrefs that KJV-v.1 contained.?"

Yea, mostly the in the NT as far as I could deduce from the version at Amazon.

[GonzoII]

Thanks for the addition!

[MarkBsnr]

Over the 12 years and 25 sessions the Council made many decrees on nearly every aspect of Catholicism, reaffirming dogma and doctrine challenged by the Reformation and rebutting the heresies.

I wouldn't say 'generally'. Acceptance of the Septuagint was world-wide at the time of Christ. Many more Jews used Greek than Hebrew and it was the lingua franca not only of the world, but of the scattered Jews around the world and in the Middle East. The mythical Council of Jamnia was supposedly convened to deal after the Temple fall with the increased scattering of the Jews and the growing Christian presence. The tale further goes to say that the Roman emperor Flavius pressured the Council to especially remove Macabbees because of the Jewish revolt portrayed in it against the Romans. To reiterate, if there was a Council, it was convened 60 years or so after Jesus Resurrected and it was a council of Jewish Pharisees, not Christians.

The birkat, prayed by Jews in the traditions of that rabbinical Council, says "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish."

Jews think of Christians in similar fashion to what Christians think of the Latter Day Saints.

[MarkBsnr]

"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.

I suppose we do. Let us turn to Jesus to explain it to us.

Matthew 5: 17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

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.

Again, let us turn to the words of Jesus.

Matthew 28: 16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The Church is to teach all men, and we have the Faith given to the Apostles from Jesus, and handed down from them to us. With these words from Christ, you may wish to re-examine your interpretation of the passage from Galatians.

[MarkBsnr]

I overheard on a SF bus over a dozen years ago some crazy lady ranting “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ...”.

My encounter was with an a-capella Church of Christ pastor who also raved on about Jesus teaching from the KJV...