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]

So..what does this mean to anything? Especially to Peter and the 11 who were STILL at JERUSALEM? When the Church at Jerusalem heard of this, they sent Barnabas to look into it and HE went to Tarsus to find Saul (later called Paul), and UNDER SAUL the Church at Antioch became the BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE GENTILES with "the gospel of the grace of God."

That's been quite a story up until this point. How about some evidence and not just layer upon layer of conjecture?

God, in His grace, in SPITE of Israel's rejection of Messiah, provided a means for Gentiles to be saved APART FROM ISRAEL: "BY THE GOSPEL".

Already handled in Matthew, Mark and Acts long before Saul's conversion.

But it is all part of the transition taking place in Acts. From law to grace, from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers, from the gospel of the circumcision to the gospel of the uncircumcision, etc. From Biblical Prophecy to a Biblical Mystery, hid in God from the foundation of the world, until revealed to the Apostle Paul. Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9.

Quite a tale there and thoroughly unconvincing, especially when we are aware of what else lies behind the facade of this position. Your post reads like a succession from Christ to the Twelve to the minimalist churches of Jews versus a succession from Christ to Saul/Paul to the success of Christianity. The Twelve are a practice run and don't amount to much. Paul is the one to whom Christians must turn to. No.

Paul was necessary. But so was Peter. So were all the other Apostles (including Judas if you think about it).

[MarkBsnr]

Why do you think I am "cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles"? When nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the truth. Your posts treat the Twelve rather shabbily, as if they contributed nothing other than to pad out the Gospels, which you come across as believing inconsequential. You dwell on Paul's contributions almost exclusively and have made it known that you believe that the Gospels were to the Jews only and true Christians were to pay attention to Paul's works primarily.

I think this here is where our problem is: Does your Church believe and teach Millenialism?

Recite the Lord's Prayer and see.

Our inheritance is different than Israel's inheritance. One is heavenly, the other is earthly. Of course the coming of Christ for His Body (the rapture) doesn't make any sense to your Church, why would it?

Fantasy made up over the last 200 years doesn't interest the Church.

Peter and the 11 had a specific calling to Israel and Messiah. Paul had a specific calling to the Gentiles and the Church the Body of Christ.

Both were disobedient to their callings, weren't they?

They are CHRIST'S WORDS. It seems to me that it is Paul's ministry that is cheapened by those who insist that the words of the risen Christ are of lesser value than Christ's earthly ministry.

Only by those who think that Christ is the forerunner of Paul. Your misintepretations of Paul do not agree with 2000 years of Christianity. Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles. Isn't it possible that he was wearing his salesman's hat when he said that?

[MarkBsnr]

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.

[MarkBsnr]

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

But let us not forget that Physeter macrocephalus makes a meal of the whole issue.

[smvoice]

You have been given SCRIPTURE, not conjecture.

ACTS 8:1: "And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen) death. And AT THAT TIME there was a great persecution against the CHURCH WHICH WAS AT JERUSALEM; and THEY WERE ALL SCATTERED ABROAD throughout the regions of JUDEA AND SAMARIA, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES."

What part of that Scripture is "conjecture" in your mind?

Acts 11:22-26: "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the CHURCH WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM; and THEY SENT FORTH Barnabas, that he should go as far as ANTIOCH. Who, when he came, and had seen the GRACE OF GOD, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith; and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for TO SEEK SAUL: And when he had found him, he brought him (PAUL) UNTO ANTIOCH. ANd it came to pass, that A WHOLE YEAR THEY ASSEMBLED THEMSELVES WITH THE CHURCH, AND TAUGHT MUCH PEOPLE. AND THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS FIRST IN ANTIOCH."

What is it you don't get?

The Church at Jerusalem was under persecution, all were scattered abroad, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES> MEANING THEY REMAINED IN JERUSALEM. Acts 8:1, once again.

Those who had been scattered abroad preached the word to none but the Jews only until Antioch, where they also preached to the Greeks. PETER AND THE 11 DID NOT< HOWEVER. THEY WERE STILL AT JERUSALEM. REMEMBER? THey remained there when the persecution started. But they sent Barnabas to Antioch to see for himself what was happening there. Barnabas sees for himself and goes to Tarsus to find Saul, to bring him to ANTIOCH. WHERE THEY assembled for a year and taught many people. Acts 11:22-26.

It really isn't difficult to understand. All it takes is reading what God says happened.

P.S. Acts 11:29,30 states that Peter and the 11 were doing so well in getting out the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews, that it wouldn't be long before Israel accepted Christ as Messiah and the Gospel could be carried on to all Nations ....

No. It doesn't say that AT ALL. "Then the disciples (in Antioch, NOT Peter and the 11, they were STILL in Jerusalem), every man according to his ability, determined to SEND RELIEF UNTO THE BRETHREN WHICH DWELT IN JUDEA: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."

So...why weren't Peter and the 11 out of Jerusalem, Judea, Israel in general, spreading the gospel of the kingdom as Christ commanded them? Paul and Barnabus were having great success in their commission. So much so that they took up relief to send to brethren...

I give you Scripture, which IS evidence. And you accuse me of conjecture. No, it's true. I have no photos of Peter and the 11 standing outside the temple at Jerusalem, waving to the brethren at Antioch. And I have no video of Paul delivering relief to those at Judea. God's Word is a more perfect testimony. After all, it's HIS TRUTH that HE HAS REVEALED to man. It is HIS revelation to mankind. Photos wouldn't help if one refuses to believe. Reading wouldn't help. I give you Scripture and you ask me for evidence. The BOOK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

[smvoice]

..and one more thing, for the record...

"Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles" you said..

FOR I SPEAK TO YOU GENTILES, INASMUCH AS I AM THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES; I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE." Rom. 11:13. Paul said, by the Holy Spirit.

[editor-surveyor]

We know.

It happens to you often.

[D-fendr]

Let’s put kindergarten in recess for the month.

I'm sorry, I cannot find anything close to a Christian heresy or religious term or reference to such term using your spelling:

Search on Nicolaitano.

This search returns comments of yours on FR, with variant spellings, to Salvation: "As a Nico Laitano, I would think that you would understand the difference between Latinos and NicoLaitanos" and one to Quix: "The Religion forum should simply be renamed The NicoLaitano forum."

But there's no further relevant use of the term that I can find other than yours. I just can't find it used in any similar context other than from your posts. It seems to be something important to you. So, if you have some reference, please post.

[metmom]

Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles.

Oh really Mark?

He spent LITTLE time with the Gentiles? And who is really calling him apostle to the Gentiles? Some guy named Jesus, wasn't it?

Perhaps you can find Scripture to contradict the ones given below to show that Paul WASN'T the apostle to the Gentiles as Jesus appointed him to be.

Acts 9:15-16 15 But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for he (Saul) is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Acts 13:46-48 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 14:27 27 And when they (Paul and Barnabas) arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:22-26 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 22:19-21 19 And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20 And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ 21 And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

Acts 26:12-18 12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Galatians 2:1-2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

Galatians 2:7-9 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Ephesians 3:1-3 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.

Ephesians 3:7-8 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,....

Romans 11:13-14 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Timothy 2:5-7 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

[metmom]

Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles.

IOW, that statement is a fail of EPIC proportions.

[MarkBsnr]

and one more thing, for the record...

"Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles" you said..

FOR I SPEAK TO YOU GENTILES, INASMUCH AS I AM THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES; I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE." Rom. 11:13. Paul said, by the Holy Spirit.

Prove to me Scripturally that he followed through with it.

[MarkBsnr]

Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles.

IOW, that statement is a fail of EPIC proportions.

From Paul's journeys, prove to me that he actually spent his time evangelizing the Gentiles. Let's see you prove it Scripturally. After all, if it is not in Scripture, it is not, right?

[MarkBsnr]

Perhaps you can find Scripture to contradict the ones given below to show that Paul WASN'T the apostle to the Gentiles as Jesus appointed him to be.

I don't have to. Tell me as a percentage of his time versus the other Apostles that he was the evangelizer to the Gentiles versus the Jews. Let's just add up his activities as recorded in Scripture, shall we?

[MarkBsnr]

We know. It happens to you often.

Know-nothing ersatz Christians happen to me often.

[count-your-change]

And I would add that anyone printing the 1611 edition of the KJV should include the translators comments. Therein the translators retain the right (and those that follow) to revisit their work and make whatever corrections and updates found necessary.

Given that apocrypha are not accepted as part of “all Scripture” it is not surprising they are now left out of later editions.

Of course it must be noted that many KJV Bibles printed barely have the publishers identified let alone any notes or commentary.

[CynicalBear]

Promoting books with errors like the following doesn’t add to confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity.

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!

In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.

Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,

Nebuchadnezzar didn’t rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.

2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah

Why would anyone rely on books with obvious errors? The Holy Spirit inspired books have never been shown to have errors. The Catholic Church uses books with obvious errors to try to prop up their own errors but even they won’t actually call them scripture.

When someone relies on books with obvious error is it any wonder they get other portions of scripture wrong?

[Iscool]

And these people teach bible to little kids (and adults)...

[Iscool]

Prove to me Scripturally that he followed through with it.

Followed thru with it??? The bible is the best selling book the world has ever seen...Paul has been preaching to millions upon millions of Gentiles for 2000 years as was his commission...

You have been shown time and time again the words of God that gave this commission to Paul, yet your religion chooses to reject what God says...

And what did/does Paul teach the Gentiles???

Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

[metmom]

Prove to me Scripturally that he followed through with it.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Is that the best you can do????

[Natural Law]

"And what did/does Paul teach the Gentiles???"

Please do not confuse the message with the messenger. Regardless of which of the Apostles or Disciples preached, they all preached the one Good News

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" Galatians 1:8

Of course Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, but so too the other 11 and hundreds of more Disciples. Doesn't the Bible teach us that Peter was the first to teach the Word to the Gentile Cornelius at Caesarea? There are records of Apostles traveling to places without Jewish populations like India, Russia, Ethiopia, Persia and Europe.