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.

 

[Natural Law]

"Apostolic succession does not appear in Scripture."

The term "Apostolic succession" does not appear in Scripture, but neither does trinity for that matter. However, it is well documented and obvious when Scripture is read without Protestant filters.

[Dutchboy88]

"The term "Apostolic succession" does not appear in Scripture, but neither does trinity for that matter. However, it is well documented and obvious when Scripture is read without Protestant filters."

It may be well documented in the self-serving papers of Rome, but it conspicuously absent from the pages of Scripture right along with Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Bigfoot. Your group may wish to live in a fantasy world, but believers in Christ hold onto reality.

[Natural Law]

"Your group may wish to live in a fantasy world, but believers in Christ hold onto reality."

You need to actually read, every word and word choice, every comma, every setting of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Scripture instead of adhering to the "grid" of Protestant eisegesis. Claiming the supremacy of Scripture and then ignoring significant parts of it is disingenuous at best.

“You receive the body of the Lord with special care and reverence lest the smallest crumb of the consecrated gift fall to the floor. You should receive the word of God with equal care and reverence lest the smallest word of it fall to the floor and be lost.” - Origen

[Dutchboy88]

Origen is another of your patsies worth no more than a quote from you. Read the Book itself, my FRiend. It is not there, nor are sacerdotalism, papalism, the sacraments, cathedrals, mariolatry, the pope mobile, the pointy hats, the gold chains, the prada shoes, the candles, or any of the other sick and twisted doctrines from hell that Rome propagates.

[D-fendr]

Yes, “faith alone” does appear once in scripture.

Preceded by “not by”.

Neither sola fide nor sola scriptura are scriptural.

So, you too, have followed traditions - only a different one.

[Dutchboy88]

If you are so naive to think that some cliche’ you heard from an old man in a bathrobe and pointy hat makes the entire testimony of the Scriptures go away, you are in far worse shape than I thought. No traditions here, my
FRiend, just the message of the Word of God. But, you are welcome to continue to follow men.

[D-fendr]

If you follow the unscriptural sola scriptura and sola fide, you’re following a tradition of man, whatever he happened to be wearing.

[D-fendr]

The main point being if you’re basing you theology/doctrine on the doctrine of scripture alone, you’re bolloxed at the start, since scripture alone negates itself.

[Natural Law]

"...or any of the other sick and twisted doctrines from hell that Rome propagates."

If you are looking for a food fight you won't get one from me. Hooting, chest thumping and feces throwing is how lower primates settle territorial disputes, it is not how Christians are suppose to behave when discussing the Word. I forgive you and will be here if or when you are ready for a civil discussion.

[Natural Law]

"...or any of the other sick and twisted doctrines from hell that Rome propagates."

If you are looking for a food fight you won't get one from me. Hooting, chest thumping and feces throwing is how lower primates settle territorial disputes, it is not how Christians are suppose to behave when discussing the Word. I forgive you and will be here if or when you are ready for a civil discussion.

[Dutchboy88]

You may wish to get your main points straight.

[Dutchboy88]

No food fight from here, my FRiend. Just explaining to you folks the way Rome has enslaved you with the chains of men. That is what makes their doctrines sick and twisted. We invite you to swim back over the Tiber...if you can.

[D-fendr]

thanks for your reply.

Can you refute the main point?

[Natural Law]

"Just explaining to you folks the way Rome has enslaved you with the chains of men."

No enslavement here. Although a cradle Catholic I admit I was poorly catechized by my Church and parents. In the 60's I started from a position of agnosticism and doubt> I read the major religious works of the other world religions with them the entire bible and the Creeds. From them was able to reject paganism and heresy and assemble the Catholic belief system.

It comes down to understanding and accepting my limitations in an infinite universe. I do not look at Scripture, dogma and doctrine with an egotistic eye that if it doesn't make sense to or compliment me it must be wrong. I look at Scripture, dogma and doctrine with the skeptical eye of a humble student and pilgrim and see what 2,000 years of intellectual giants have also said about it before I "obey" and serve my Lord. Time and again I have learned that where I have difficulties the problem has been with me and my limited understanding, not the Church.

Study and prayer have always lead me to a position that is in harmony with the Catholic Church and the Truth. I look beyond the sinners and concentrate on the saints.

Does than mean that I still do not have or will not have difficulties in the future? Absolutely not, but it also liberates me to question and challenge freely in pursuit of the truth. I have reason to trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church and not fallible and errant humans like you and me.

[Dutchboy88]

Certainly: If you follow an organization (error #1), an organization which does not comport with the Scriptures it claims to have delivered (error #2), and that organization substitutes a message which calls you back to the Law (error #3 - #1,679 approx.), you have followed an empty shell. We shall see when this is all over if that was merely an exercise in futility or a fatal error.

[Dutchboy88]

"2,000 years of intellectual giants have also said about it"

Well, with all due respect, the "intellectual giants" of Judaism held a view of the Law for 1400 years that Jesus refuted as wrong. Perhaps that is a model you should inculcate into your pursuit. Read the text itself...it does not contain the message of Rome.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. However, before we compare authority we would first have to recognize and identify yours, since it is not scripture alone.

My main point was:

“… if you’re basing you theology/doctrine on the doctrine of scripture alone, you’re bolloxed at the start, since scripture alone negates itself.”

The corollary being that sola scriptura is a tradition.

And, therefore, you are following that tradition, whether it be from an organization, person or yourself.

You could either identify where you get or derive your authority or refute the main point.

[Dutchboy88]

You have developed the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.

That is not a doctrine, my FRiend. Any more than breathing is a doctrine. We have been given the Scriptures, we read them, and find that the doctrines of Rome do not appear in them. End of argument.

[Natural Law]

"Well, with all due respect, the "intellectual giants" of Judaism held a view of the Law for 1400 years that Jesus refuted as wrong."

That is a falsehood that borders on blasphemy. In the the pedagogy or "evolution of revelation", the Old Testament was never wrong. It was right until Jesus fulfilled it, and then it was no longer right for us.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

However your reply assumes the doctrine sola scriptura: Your conclusion is valid only if sola scriptura is valid.

Which it is not since it negates itself.

You would still need to refute the main point in order for your conclusion to be accepted as proven or true.