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.

 

[GonzoII]

Don't get me wrong I love the (complete) KJV.

I just ordered this baby last week!

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.

I "looked inside this book" at Amazon and it has one of
my favorite references to Revelations from Tobit:

TOBIT 12:15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.”

>Rev 8:2-4: “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. 3. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.”

>Lk 1:19: “And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.”

[GonzoII]

" What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ?"

I know not me Lord, to the tower with 'em??

[LetMarch]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1)

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

“Being confident of this very thing,that He that hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Philippians 1:6)

“But He[God] hath made Him[Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)

[SuzyQue]

Somewhat of a frustrating article. It keeps stating that the “Catholic” Bible is better than the “Protestant” Bible because it does contain much of the Apocrypha and that the Apocrypha is important, but it doesn’t say why it is important.

[gusty]

The KJV was good enough for George Washington, than it is good enough for me.

[Pollster1]

The KJV was good enough for George Washington, than it is good enough for me.

A much better sentiment than one I heard years ago in song: "The King James Bible . . . it was good enough for Moses, and it's good enough for me." I love the Bible and don't particularly like it when others make fun of religious people or religion gratuitously, but we have to laugh at ourselves when it is justified.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

As I have posted on other threads, the KJV and the Geneva bibles are available with the Apocrypha. Everyone should read these books at least once to see why they are irrelevant.

My copy of the Catholic NAB says that TOBIT and JUDITH are religious NOVELs. Who would base their salvation and beliefs on a NOVEL! Even I won’t read modern Christian prophetic fiction from a bookstore.

The Apocrypha should be placed in the same category as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, which for many years was considered, by some, as Sacred Scripture. Even JEROME wanted them out of his translation of the scripture but the Pope wanted them in, so they are in.

It should be noted that the great Protestant Writer JOHN BUNYAN found comfort in some of the Apocrypha (GRACE ABOUNDING to the CHIEF OF SINNERS). I believe it was in Eccleasticus.

You have a CAMBRIDGE bible! That is what I use. I get mine from http://www.bibles-direct.co.uk/

I also have an English OXFORD bible, not one of those US printed versions with lots of “footnotes” which detract from what is written.

[sigzero]

There is a reason it is called the “Apocrypha”. It will always be contested.

By the way, there was a KJV called “the naughty Bible” too because when it was printed the commandment said “Thou shalt commit adultery”.

[GonzoII]

"but it doesn’t say why it is important."

If the Septuagint, which contains the Deuterocanonicals in question, was quoted 2/3 of the time in the New Testament when referring to the Old Testament I think they should deserve a hearing.

I as Catholic of course hold them as inspired because the Church says they are. ;0)

[taxcontrol]

Further, it does not state why the Protestants choose not to value either the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha and not rising to the level of scripture or cannon.

At the core of the Protestant resistance to the Apocrypha are two basic issues; 1) The works are of unknown authorship and 2) There are practices that are in variance to the teachings of the New Testament

One of the major reasons that the Protestants do not accept the Pseudepigrapha is because there is a claim of authorship that is false.

[Natural Law]

"There is a reason it is called the “Apocrypha”."

What would that be since the proper term is the "Deuterocanonical books".

[GonzoII]

"My copy of the Catholic NAB says that TOBIT and JUDITH are religious NOVELs."

I'll leave it experts to decide what kind of literary genre these books were written in and that of course comes from the commentary.

If God inspired someone to write a "novel" to convey religious truth then praise the Lord. It would still be God's novel and I'll read it.

[Mr Rogers]

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)

[arthurus]

The story of Noah has been placed in the category of “novel” as well.

[Mr Rogers]

“If the Septuagint, which contains the Deuterocanonicals in question, was quoted 2/3 of the time in the New Testament when referring to the Old Testament I think they should deserve a hearing.”

The Apocrypha is never cited as the word of God in the NT.

[GonzoII]

"You have a CAMBRIDGE bible!"

It's on the way and at a good price!

[ntnychik]

Bump

[catroina54]

By no ways or means am i even near the scholarly level of the author but I do know that the deliberate removal of the Books led to division and sometimes outright ridicule of Catholic and Orthodox Christians Scriptural based practices and beliefs as in praying for the dead—
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Maccabees+12%3A41-46&version=DRA

[GonzoII]

"The story of Noah has been placed in the category of “novel” as well."

I and others more educated than myself are no fans of the NAB Bible..it has problems.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.