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.

 

[editor-surveyor]

P.S. Nicolaitano has had a clear meaning in the Greek language for over three millenia. It has been used in various forms to deride tyranny of almost every kind.

[Natural Law]

"I’m saying that the face meaning of every sentence in the Bible is true..."

You really should have selected a better example than Nicolatians to make your point since there is a significant amount of disagreements even among the Protestants as to what the term means. None of the concordances equate the term to what you are implying (see Strong's 3531). Even the few confabulated attempts to construct an indictment of the Church do so out of whole cloth.

"A person of average intelligence will easily understand the Bible IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND"

Are you asking me to believe that anyone can will themselves to believe or solve anything? That implies that if you want to believe something bad enough it becomes your truth.

Note: "Nicolaitano" is not a Greek word.

[editor-surveyor]

You seem to be a very confused person.

Nicolaitano is very much a Greek word. In simplest terms it means Rule the people. It has also more complex connotations, depending on context.

There is no disagreement between honest people on its meaning in the context of Revelations. The deceivers of the RC church have a strong need to cover up the true meaning because it reveals Christ’s condemnation of their every day practices.

I won’t ask you to believe anything; I see the depths of denial that I would encounter in doing so, and will refrain from any attempt to have a sane sensible intelligent conversation.

[D-fendr]

Nicolaitano is very much a Greek word

Are you referring to Nicolaitan(s) or Nicolaitanes?

[editor-surveyor]

Nicolaitanes is the plural.

[D-fendr]

Yes, it can be found that way and as Nicolaitans, plural, and Nicolaitan, singular. I think Nicolaitano is an error spelling, and least that’s what searches indicate.

[D-fendr]

FWIW, this is what wikitionary entry:

English
Alternative forms
Nicholaitan

Etymology
From Nicolaite + -an.

Noun
Nicolaitan (plural Nicolaitans)
A member of an early Christian sect, said to participate in certain pagan ceremonies.

[Natural Law]

"There is no disagreement between honest people on its meaning in the context of Revelations."

I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of being dishonest or less than reasonably educated for rejecting your interpretation of what or who the Nicoliatians mentioned in Revelations were. The Nicolatians were a Christian heresy.

The term “Nicolatians” was never recorded before it appeared in the Book of Revelations. The earliest writings, other than the introduction of the term in Revelation, was by the Early Church Fathers. St. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote that the term refers to a sect founded by Nicholas, one of the first seven Deacons of the Church. Hippolytus concurred. St. Irenaeus wrote that the characteristic tenets of Nicolatians were the lawfulness of promiscuous sexual intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols. St. Epiphanius of Salamis. St. Eusebius wrote substantially the same thing. Tertullian spoke of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family that was already extinct.

The 17th century Lutheran Johann Lorenz von Mosheim wrote: "the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannot be solved." Johann Augustus Neander, the father of Protestant historiography, doubted whether the actual existence of such a sect can be proved, and thought that the name was symbolical and mystical like much of the Book of Revelation, to denote corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He proposed that the term relates not to a specific group, but to a type of person who enticed Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts and orgies of the pagans, much just as the Old Testament Jews were led astray by the Moabites,

[editor-surveyor]

That wiki entry obviously was written by a catholic, bent on hiding what Christ clearly meant by it.

Nico is not Nicholas by any stretch.

The catholic “church’s” policy of hiding the word of God from the people is an extension of the practices of the Pharisees that founded it.

Anyway, this is wisdom: Don’t be a Wikipedophile!
.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes, Lutherans being an extension of the errors of the catholic ‘church’ would hold the sane interest in covering the express words of Christ.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes, Lutherans being an extension of the errors of the catholic ‘church’ would hold the same interest in covering the express words of Christ.

[D-fendr]

I’m sorry, I’m not finding what I *think* you’re alluding to or the ‘o’ spelling.

Perhaps a link to the spelling, etymology, exegesis you’re in agreement with?

[editor-surveyor]

The ‘o’ ending is singular.

[D-fendr]

I can’t find it by the spelling, only ‘an’ for singular.

Do you have a link to anything using that spelling?

[editor-surveyor]

Let’s put kindergarten in recess for the month.

[Natural Law]

"Perhaps a link to the spelling, etymology, exegesis you’re in agreement with?"

For something that is supposed to be easy and self interpreting for the reasonable man this sure is complicated and confusing.

I really, really, really want to get to the truth. I closed my eyes real hard (like a Televangelist during the passing of the collection plate), clicked my heels three times, and looked for evidence to corroborate Editor's claim, but it still comes up hollow.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “For something that is supposed to be easy and self interpreting for the reasonable man this sure is complicated and confusing.” <<

.
Yes, as I posted to you previously, for those that prefer not to understand, the Lord sends strong delusion. That is the likely source of your confusion.

[Natural Law]

"for those that prefer not to understand, the Lord sends strong delusion."

I'll give you credit for one thing, you put out an ink cloud that even an Architeuthis would be impressed by.

[smvoice]

"My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to the positions, doctrines, dogmas and history of the Church."

My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to God word.

You said a few posts ago that you do not believe in Millenialism. I'm not going back to look it up, but I think you said nor does your Church. That you do not believe that Christ is literally going to return to this earth and reign for 1000 years. Please correct me if I've made a mistake as to what you or your Church believes. The reason I'm curious is what do you think the Millenial Kingdom is about? Is it just a spiritual kingdom, or is it a physical kingdom? ANd why would Christ want to return to this earth to set it up? In your opinion. Why not just have everything spiritually in heaven and nothing physically on this planet? (I'm asking you to put on your outside the RCC box thinking cap and think about what could be the reason for His second coming to this earth). Because, according to God's word, there IS a reason for Christ returning here. And His Millennial reign here. In fact, there are SEVERAL reasons for it. Literal return, and literal results.

[Natural Law]

"You said a few posts ago that you do not believe in Millenialism."

That is correct. The Church, as revealed in Luke 1:33 in acknowledged in the Nicene Creed, believes that "His kingdom will have no end".