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.

 

[MarkBsnr]

For your ‘before and after,’ chronological order, of Paul’s epistles, are you going by the order they appear in the canon?

An excellent question. It had not occurred to me that anyone would think that Paul's Epistles were listed in chronological order in the Bible.

[smvoice]

Since Romans appears first in order in canon, the obvious answer is no. They are chronologically listed as to when they were written. Pre-prison epistles and prison epistles.

Could you not have just opened your Bibles and seen the answer for yourself? Just askin'...

[Natural Law]

"Paying attention to what is and is not in the Scriptures is adding to the Scriptures?"

Scriptures are only an incomplete reflection of the Word. They are important only in that they give testimony to God. Jesus is found in the Eucharist and Grace in the Sacraments.

"You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." - - John 5:39-40

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

What is your source for dating the epistles?

[RobbyS]

I am surprised that you have never of Protestantism. It was the generic term until a few years ago, although I guess if you come form a Baptist perspective, you might be uncomfortable with the term./s..

[Dutchboy88]

"The Gospels and Acts disagree with that statement. Jesus put a lot of time and effort into the creation of the Church. Peter and the 12, as well as Paul and his assistants show that that statement is wrong overall. The Church is an organization; else it is chaos."

Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well. But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob. Acts 19:32; 19:39; 19:41. It was a common word, but not for a formal organization. The assembly Jesus is building is being done by His Holy Spirit blowing wherever He wishes.

I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.

Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.

Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.

Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.

I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.

My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.

[Natural Law]

"The Church is an organization; else it is chaos." The Gospels tell us exactly how and why Jesus established His Church and that that His Church would be led by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance and that the first Pope was Peter.

Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.

In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.

In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). This was the Democratic option. He got answers varying from Elijah, to John the Baptist, to "One of the Prophets", but no clear, unambiguous or truthful answer. He then asked His Apostles; "Who do you say that I am?" This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.

Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)

• I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.

Now, if this was the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.

What is meant by Church? It certainly is not a loose aggregation of like minded persons. The English word “church”, with its history of usage, clouds and confuses the intention of this passage. The Greek word used was Ekklesia and the Hebrew / Aramaic word was Qahal. These had very specific meanings to the first century witnesses.

The concept of an Ekklesia, or the called out, was centuries old in the Greek culture. More correctly translated as a convocation, it was a specific group of people called into a hierarchical and structured assembly for a specific purpose. It was the supreme governing body of the Greek city states. It was limited to men over the age of 18 who had served at least two years of military service in the defense of the city. It alone had the power to pass a death sentence, to select, remove, or try a government official, and to declare war. There were also severe penalties for failure to assemble when called.

The Qahal is even more indicative of a fixed and hierarchical organizational structure. It was the theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society.

[Dutchboy88]

"Scriptures are only an incomplete reflection of the Word. They are important only in that they give testimony to God. Jesus is found in the Eucharist and Grace in the Sacraments."

II Tim 3:16,17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

I'll defer to the Scriptures over your opinion that we need your organization, my FRiend. Even though your private interpretation is that this is my "private interpretation". An "adequate" interpretation is better than an "incomplete" interpretation. And, I certainly want to find eternal life in Jesus, or rather as Paul said, to be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own, but a righteousness from Him.

[D-fendr]

Profitable or useful is quite different in meaning from entirely sufficient by itself.

thanks for your posts.

[Natural Law]

"II Tim 3:16,17"

Thank you for proving my point. St. Paul is telling us that Scripture is a great training aid. No Catholic will argue with that. But The ministry of Jesus is infinitely more than is included in the Bible as we are taught in John 21:25

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25

At the time this letter was written the only Scripture available was the Old Testament. Since Jesus and His ministry was predicted over 450 times in the Old Testament it was indeed profitable ("useful" and "beneficial") for all of these things, but it was not by itself to be an object of worship, a gnostic key, or a book of incantations with special healing powers to be cited to ward off evil spirits and Catholics.

[smvoice]

...really? Do you want me to draw a timeline for you, starting at the Book of Acts and comparing Paul's epistles to Acts' time periods to prove to you what I've given you? I've given you the pre-prison Epistles he wrote, and I've given the the Prison Epistles he wrote. I've given you the Epistles he wrote BEFORE Israel was blinded and set aside, and I've given you the Epistles he wrote AFTER Israel was blinded and set aside.

If that is not enough, then may I suggest you follow 2 Tim 2:15 and STUDY for yourself? It isn't that hard to figure it out.

Unless you've been told that your church tradition holds something like Paul wrote Ephesians on February 29, 64 AD, and because that was a leap year, then it only has to be followed every 4 years...

pardon my impatience, but a little study on your part, if even to prove me wrong, would be helpful.:)

[D-fendr]

No offense intended.

It just seemed to me that order and date were very important to your exegesis so I was asking how you arrive at this. I’m not aware of any precisely known dating for all the epistles.

If you have a source/chart, that would be appreciated, since it seems quite crucial to your points here.

[D-fendr]

To explain with an example:

>>>the Epistles he wrote BEFORE Israel was blinded and set aside, and I’ve given you the Epistles he wrote AFTER Israel was blinded and set aside.

It would seem that the before and after here would also need to match with chronology of writing.

There are other considerations of course, such as audience and purpose, that affect content; but it would help to match up the date/order at least.

thanks for your reply.

[Dutchboy88]

"Profitable or useful is quite different in meaning from entirely sufficient by itself.

thanks for your posts."

Perhaps, but the text says, "adequate, equipped for every good work..." and does not refer to any organization needing to provide pronouncements about its meaning. It is tragic you are chained to a group which owns your interpretation. The believers in Christ are held only by Jesus.

[Natural Law]

"It is tragic you are chained to a group which owns your interpretation."

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? - 1 Corinthians 12:29-30

[D-fendr]

The alternative you propose is every individual, a plethora that we see today.

Sola scriptura is neither scriptural, logical, nor practical.

I think that’s why Christ did not teach it.

:)

[Dutchboy88]

This would be almost laughable if it were not so pathetic. The “interpretation” in this passage is interpreting the foreign tongues. But, that would require one to read it in context, something evidently Rome won’t allow. Reading some of this junk really makes me want to take back that remark about not beating up Rome. On second thought that dark cult needs a good dose of hell. After all, that is where the organization is bound.

[D-fendr]

The problem quickly becomes: which believer to believe? Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Messianic Judaism, etc..?

We see in the NT that this is not what is taught. Paul does not say: read this letter and whatever you think is doctrine is doctrine.

The Council of Jerusalem did not arrive at two different doctrines, did not leave it up to each individual.

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

[D-fendr]

I should add, regarding:

>>> and does not refer to any organization needing to provide pronouncements about its meaning.

Paul teaches with authority. The Council meets - with authority.

Paul wrote to specific people in specific churches in specific places. There is a hierarchy and an authority and a visible Church. This is organization not anarchy. What you describe is quite contrary to the NT Church.

[Natural Law]

"This would be almost laughable if it were not so pathetic."

I hope you are not implying that is an infallible interpretation? Why then would St. Paul draw an analogy between misunderstanding and tongues if we are to assume that is what he meant?

"If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me." - 1 Corinthians 14:11