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]

I don’t debate with people who post lies about me.

[MarkBsnr]

What I did say is that salvation is an individual thing. Putting ones trust in Jesus alone rather than an institution or individual is the only sure way. Understanding the “meat” of scripture is not paramount to ones salvation. I have also said that putting ones trust in any individual or institution is risky at best. When a person is led to understanding the “meat” of scripture it is indeed their responsibility to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” with all that entails. How deeply one delves into that understanding is an individual calling.

Does that 'trust' involve any innate or revealed knowledge?

[count-your-change]

Your example answers my question and thanks. Paul certainly set an example but it was he himself that said to pay attention to those taking the lead and as we saw how their course turned out we were to imitate their faith. (Heb. 13:7) Presumably that would include Peter and the others as they died in faith.

I know of but one “gospel of the Kingdom” and the twelve preached it, Paul preached it, just one, not Peter’s and then Paul’s.

[smvoice]

lol! I really appreciate your unwavering appeal to source authority. It shows you are not willing to accept something just because someone says it's so. You search diligently for the answers to your questions, and will stop at nothing until you are satisfied that all the information you require has been given.

BTW: Could you please give me the dating of Peter's exodus to Rome? It IS the authority from which your Church operates from the Vatican, no? And it does seem critical to your theology.

Thanks for your reply. I know it will be enlightening.

[MarkBsnr]

I know of but one “gospel of the Kingdom” and the twelve preached it, Paul preached it, just one, not Peter’s and then Paul’s.

There is Jesus the Creator, and then there are His created. We believe that the pinnacle of the revelation to man from God was the Incarnation of Christ on earth. I cannot believe that somebody's (wrong) interpretation of Paul somehow improves on the Incarnate Christ.

[smvoice]

Let me give you a little lesson on The Twelve Apostles and Paul. Since you stated "It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself." shows a severe lack of Scriptural understanding on your part. To continually mischaracterize posts is either ignorance on your part or purposeful deceit. So we'll do a little comparison of the ministries of the twelve and Paul. We'll start with Peter and the 11. Let it sink in, then we'll move on to Paul, and then we'll compare them.

1. The twelve were chosen by Christ ON EARTH (Luke 6:13).

2. At the time Paul was raised up the twelve had known only CHRIST ON EARTH. They had NOT EVEN SEEN HIM ENTER HEAVEN AT HIS ASCENSION, for, "A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT" (Acts 1:9).

3. They represented the NATION ISRAEL- ONE FOR EACH TRIBE. Clearly stated here: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE TRIBES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28).

4. These twelve were FIRST SENT FORTH to proclaim the kingdom of heaven AT HAND (Mat. 10:7, with Dan. 2:44) and then, later, to OFFER it to Israel with a view to carrying the message to all the world (Acts 1:6-8, 3:19-26).

5. They were given power to work miracles (Mat. 10:8, Mark 16:17,18).

6. Their ministry was based upon the COVENANTS AND PROPHECY (Isa. 60:1-3, Luke 1:70-75, Acts 3:22-26).

7. THEREFORE, they were sent to the Jew FIRST and looked for the salvation of the Gentiles THROUGH REGENERATED ISRAEL (Mat. 10:5,6; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:25,26).

8. They ministered in Palestine ONLY (Acts 10:39, 21:17-20). Until at least the setting aside of Israel, in Acts 28.

9. In their message and ministry they ANTICIPATED Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His RETURN TO REIGN. THIS IS WHAT THEY LABORED, HOPED AND PRAYED FOR. (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21).

10. In the "great commission" to the twelve, water baptism was REQUIRED for salvation and miraculous signs were the EVIDENCES of salvation (Mark 16:15-18, Acts 2:28).

Questions? If you choose not to look the Scriptures up for yourself and examine them, comparing Scripture with Scripture, then I pray there is someone lurking who will take the time.

You are making a mockery of something that is clearly stated in God's Word, if only you would take the time to STUDY IT.

[CynicalBear]

Revealed knowledge is when I dig into the real meaning of the Greek word “menounge”. It’s then that I find out that Jesus really said “nay rather” when someone was trying to give veneration to Mary. Revealed knowledge is when I find out that the Catholic Church only began to claim the Apocryphal books were inspired after they needed them to confirm doctrine not found in what they formerly declared scripture.

Nice try tho Mark.

[CynicalBear]

>> Thanks for your reply. I know it will be enlightening.<<

I will really look forward to getting that as it’s a piece I’m missing on some research I’m doing. Hopefully it will come soon.

[CynicalBear]

That was powerful smvoice. Wow! I truly pray that many who read that will study it and take from it what is there. Great job!

[MarkBsnr]

Let me give you a little lesson on The Twelve Apostles and Paul.

Oh goody.

Since you stated "It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself." shows a severe lack of Scriptural understanding on your part.

It is what I believe that you are posting, and by the way, you are reinforcing it with your post here.

To continually mischaracterize posts is either ignorance on your part or purposeful deceit.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming as to what you are posting.

So we'll do a little comparison of the ministries of the twelve and Paul. We'll start with Peter and the 11. Let it sink in, then we'll move on to Paul, and then we'll compare them.

And this will advance your thesis that Peter and the Twelve (and the Gospels) are for the Jews only and that it is to Paul that we Christians must turn for direction? Let us see. Pray proceed.

1. The twelve were chosen by Christ ON EARTH (Luke 6:13).

God is somehow different in His choices whilst on earth? Hmmm. A changeable God. What other wisdom do you proffer?

2. At the time Paul was raised up the twelve had known only CHRIST ON EARTH. They had NOT EVEN SEEN HIM ENTER HEAVEN AT HIS ASCENSION, for, "A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT" (Acts 1:9).

Did Paul? Acts 9: 1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

It says that Paul was blinded. Paul never saw Jesus at all. Paul never saw Jesus until after his death. You are correct. There is a definite handicap. The Twelve had three years of the sight of Jesus. I must begin to apologize for having doubted you that Paul is of a different Apostolic calling and with different amounts of confirmation of Jesus. Paul only saw a light and then was blinded. And he still believed. Strong man.

3. They represented the NATION ISRAEL- ONE FOR EACH TRIBE. Clearly stated here: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE TRIBES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28).

Neat. Now, who is the Twelve here? Does that include Judas? Or Matthias? Do they get to judge anything else? Oh dear, is Paul left out? Not even a flower arranging competition? That's unsettling.

4. These twelve were FIRST SENT FORTH to proclaim the kingdom of heaven AT HAND (Mat. 10:7, with Dan. 2:44) and then, later, to OFFER it to Israel with a view to carrying the message to all the world (Acts 1:6-8, 3:19-26).

So the instruction to make disciples of all nations as a primary commission in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Acts 1 is a mistake? The instruction of Christ has nothing to do with Israel at this except as another nation. Now who is ignoring Scripture?

5. They were given power to work miracles (Mat. 10:8, Mark 16:17,18).

Handy in power outages and when the cable goes down.

6. Their ministry was based upon the COVENANTS AND PROPHECY (Isa. 60:1-3, Luke 1:70-75, Acts 3:22-26).

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. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

They were based upon the promises of Jesus.

8. They ministered in Palestine ONLY (Acts 10:39, 21:17-20). Until at least the setting aside of Israel, in Acts 28.

Acts 21 only mentions James, and not any of the 12. Why not? After all, when Paul went to Jerusalem before, he went to Peter and James. Now here, only James. Perhaps Peter had departed for foreign climes already.

9. In their message and ministry they ANTICIPATED Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His RETURN TO REIGN. THIS IS WHAT THEY LABORED, HOPED AND PRAYED FOR. (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21).

And they got what they got. We know that Thomas evangelized India. Why do you not take that into account? Does it spoil a nice piece of fish?

10. In the "great commission" to the twelve, water baptism was REQUIRED for salvation and miraculous signs were the EVIDENCES of salvation (Mark 16:15-18, Acts 2:28).

And you have a problem with that? The great benefactors of the gospel of prosperity use that all the time. Aren't you a fan?

Questions? If you choose not to look the Scriptures up for yourself and examine them, comparing Scripture with Scripture, then I pray there is someone lurking who will take the time.

Hear ye, hear ye, step right up. Look at the amazing March 26 2012 version of Christianity. Better get a really good photograph of it, because tomorrow it'll be wearing a whole new coat.

I hope that you understand why I am taking this tone. I have heard this a thousand times here and elsewhere. Today it's earnestly we believe this and tomorrow it's earnestly we believe that and every day it changes and every day it comes no closer to the truth. The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ does not change with the seasons. It does not change with the political climate. It does not change with whether you are fired from your job or whether you are promoted.

Jesus is the same. The Faith is the same. 2000 years of Faith versus what, 100 years of innovation.

You are making a mockery of something that is clearly stated in God's Word, if only you would take the time to STUDY IT.

I take God's Word - Jesus - very seriously. You guys cannot even get that straight. Jesus is the Word. The Bible is God's word. I cannot communicate properly with those who will not use language to mean what it actually means. If you use Christian terminology, at least please use it correctly.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

I really appreciate your unwavering appeal to source authority.

Are you saying you have no one or source you consider authoritative? I'm really not seeing your answer to the simple questions. I don't think it's that difficult. Are you saying you are your own authority on all these matters?

Is that it or is it just difficult for you to say?

[MarkBsnr]

Revealed knowledge is when I dig into the real meaning of the Greek word “menounge”. It’s then that I find out that Jesus really said “nay rather” when someone was trying to give veneration to Mary. Revealed knowledge is when I find out that the Catholic Church only began to claim the Apocryphal books were inspired after they needed them to confirm doctrine not found in what they formerly declared scripture.

Context is all, here. Christ's pronouncement while on the Cross shows what He wanted to be known about Mary.

Let's see. When were the Deuterocanonicals canonized? In the late 300s, I believe. Did they need to be canonized then to promote some heinous plot?

[smvoice]

How difficult is it for you to date when Peter went to Rome? I would think that’s a pretty simple question, since it’s been thrown around for what, 2000 years now? I’m not seeing your cooperation on these posts..but thanks for your reply. I’ll take that as an “I have no idea when Peter went to Rome. Tradition says he did, and that’s good enough for me.” Fair enough?

[D-fendr]

Excellent example and summary. I believe that’s known as Hyper-Dispensationalism.

[MarkBsnr]

That was powerful smvoice.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 23–28

Passionate, surely. Accurate in its claims, no.

[MarkBsnr]

Excellent example and summary. I believe that’s known as Hyper-Dispensationalism.

I have not done extensive study, but I find Hyper Dispensationalism lying somewhere between gazing at the god in the mirror and

[D-fendr]

I think the Church fathers would be the best source on Peter’s travels and Rome. If you wish to know what it known, that’s where I’d suggest you look.

The chronology is not critical to my theology. However, I believe the chronology of Paul’s letters is critical to yours. Not mine.

This is why I asked for your source for dating/chronology of his letters. I really still have no clue why that seems to be so difficult for you.

Neither the general question nor the specific ones have been answered. Why is it so difficult?

[CynicalBear]

Such an in depth, well studied, theological response………………………..NOT.

[smvoice]

Your smarmy answers does nothing to the discussion, Mark. I am giving you, from SCRIPTURE, a comparison of Peter and the 11's commission from Paul's commission. I started with Peter and the 11 so you wouldn't get the bends from jumping into the depths of Paul's ministry. If they are the same, then Scripture would make that perfectly clear. Paul would be the 13th Apostle. And would be sitting on a throne, judging the twelve tribes of Israel when Christ return to set up His Kingdom here on earth. But we know that is not true, according to God's Word.

Here's an interesting point that I'm sure you've never considered, because it's not in red letters. But it is an introduction to Paul's ministry and commission from the risen Lord.

"The Lord Himself said to Paul: They (Israel) WILL NOT RECEIVE THY TESTIMONY CONCERNING ME." (Acts 22:18). Wait a minute...that might just BE IN RED in your Bible, since CHRIST SAID IT. Paul's message, UNLIKE THAT OF THE TWELVE, was based upon Israel's REJECTION OF CHRIST. The twelve anticipated Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His return to reign, as I stated above. Did you know that, unlike Peter and the 11, Paul NEVER proclaimed the kingdom at hand, or offered it for Israel's acceptance? He confirmed that FACT that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, thus he went to the Jews first, until Israel was set aside, Acts 28.

I have about 10 points regarding Paul's ministry and commission. And how they compare to the twelve's ministry and commission.

"Oh goody", you say. "Thank God" I say.

And BTW: You are, once again, missing the point of Christ's earthly ministry and His ministry on this earth during His absence here. But really, I can expect no real dialogue with you on this. That's why God leads people to this site. Those who are searching and hungry for the truth of God's word. Not the religious institutions that tell them what to think, but The Word of God, that tells them what HE THINKS. His revealed word to mankind. His plan. His timeline. His way.

[smvoice]

AH, so THAT date doesn't matter? The most important date of RCC, and it doesn't matter? And you're telling me to look it up? lol! How are any of the Books of the Bible dated, D-fendr? Just HOW are the dates approximated?

It's not that it's "difficult". It's that it is so hypocritical to insist one person do something, while refusing to do the same thing yourself. Can you not identify a pre-prison Epistle with the Prison Epistles? Can you not read the salutations, and content of the Epistles and understand times and seasons, who, what, where, when, and why?

But I really appreciate your reply. You have NO IDEA how much I appreciate it..