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.

 

[CynicalBear]

Thank you boatbums! I had prayed someone would pick up on my comment. I’m going to be limited as to my time on here for the next few months as we work to get this RV Park back in shape.

It’s not difficult to see how the beliefs changed over time to accommodate the power Rome was trying to hold on too. Contrary to what they would like us to believe the RCC has surely not been consistent through the years.

[CynicalBear]

If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base. The admonition to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” was and is wise advice. I have found that trusting any one “source” other than scripture itself is tenuous at best. I don’t use the “cynical” part of my name here in a frivolous manner. I have found that “trust but verify” is not only wise but is necessary if one wants to avoid being led astray. Even searching out the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words has led to a better understanding of the intent and meaning of scripture. Putting ones trust in any other than God alone will lead to disastrous consequences.

[D-fendr]

The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.

[D-fendr]

The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t think you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.

[D-fendr]

CB, I believe you have said that each Christian is tasked with determining his/her own interpretation, or choice of interpretation, including studying the Greek and Hebrew.

Is this an accurate statement? Is this up to each individual in your view? It seems to be consistent with your post here.

[CynicalBear]

>> CB, I believe you have said that each Christian is tasked with determining his/her own interpretation, or choice of interpretation, including studying the Greek and Hebrew.<<

That would not be an accurate description. 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.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

What is the difference between ‘meat’ and not in scripture?

[smvoice]

First of all, thank you boatbums for answering the post. As always, you answered with truth and clarity. You are more than welcome, as I'm sure you know, to answer any post of mine. I do not protect them like a mother hen sitting on her eggs, waiting for them to hatch. :)

Now, speaking of laying eggs, what exactly do you feel you need, D-fendr, to stamp information with your seal of approval? I gave you the reference,page, and column, and point number. If you want to discount any of the information, look it up. Unless you would rather believe that our side has no "authoritative" references, so you have no need to look them up. If that is the case, then stop griping about it. Look into it, don't look into it. It's up to you.

What do you think we do? Find our information from Chinese Fortune Cookies at the local Jade Palace? If that ever happens, I'll scan the information to you, along with your lucky numbers...:)

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply, however I don’t see specific answers to the questions in it.

[D-fendr]

Perhaps if I restate it more simply and specifically:

What makes this authority, the one you cite, an authority for you?

[smvoice]

Gee, I don’t know, D-fendr. There isn’t even ONE red letter word in the Book, and yet...

[D-fendr]

Thanks. “I don’t know” it is, unless you’d like to offer more.

[smvoice]

Thanks for your "thanks". I will always be offering "more", with the necessary references and Scripture.

"Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE." 2 Tim.4:2. - God. "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text", p. 240, column 2.

[D-fendr]

The authoritative question involved history according to your source, not excerpts of scripture as in your reply here.

[smvoice]

...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?

See how comical it becomes?

[Natural Law]

"If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base."

The crux of this thread is that not all agree on what today constitutes the authoritative “original Scriptures”. For all of the hyperbole regarding the reliance on Hebrew sources none of them are accepted without major alteration or recognition that those that determined if rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

The Canon of the Sadducees held that only the five books of the Pentateuch were Scripture whereas the Septuagint, accepted as Scripture by the Hellenized Jews, which constituted the largest number of Jews in the first century, held that there were 70. The Pharisee Canon, to which you give most weight, was not completely closed until the 2nd Century AD and only considers 24 books of Scripture. It was set primarily to counteract the growing Christian sect and to reverse the influence of the Hellenized Jews. The Essenes and Samaritans also held different Canons.

Even after you have determined which books you accept you have to wade through the various versions since none of the original manuscripts exist today. And if you are not a native speaker of first century Koine Greek you have to accept that the translation you are using was produced inerrantly.

I am just a little curious how anyone this deeply immersed in the chaos and discord surrounding can reject outright the idea of Jesus leaving a Church with a teaching authority to deal with it.

[Rainwave]

Yes, you are so right..very frustrating, I’m with you SusyQue.
Again to all skeptics and naysayers...God does not make mistakes. The King James version has been the rock basis for complete scripture and inspiration for centuries now. It was commissioned “by God, through the Holy Spirit” so that the word could be read and understood by all people in clear and poetic verse, being excruciatingly faithful to the oldest and most accepted manuscripts and Gospels. The Catholics Love pomp and circumstance and talk of venerating saints. A couple of extra ancient texts that may or may not have been inspired scripture is ok with them, as it makes for interesting reading and reflection. Not to say those books are not true or have any value to them, but for some reason with all their detailed solemn masses, God may have wanted to break away from the constraining structure of the Catholic church and bring men and women closer to him through a Bible that had no more or no less teaching than what mankind needed for a more personal way of study, belief and worship. A.K.A. The King James Version. I’m not saying the Catholic church is in the wrong in any way. Some people Love the quiet, meditative and long practiced Latin Mass...The books of the Apocrypha make for interesting reading, as do some of the other “Lost books of the Bible”. The New International Version, the New American Standard versions and a few select others are accurate translations for a modern world, but I still find myself quoting scripture from time to time in the language of the old King James.
What worries me more than the addition or omission of the Apocrypha and or other books, is the blatant “Re-translation” of accepted scripture to fit political correctness. Changing the meaning of verses completely or adding or subtracting words to fit their own self interests or lifestyle scares me more than any “conspiracy” surrounding the Apocrypha.

[Natural Law]

"...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?"

This statement belies a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of that the Church is. It is not my Church nor D-fendr's Church, it is Christ's Church. It is not, like Protestants see a church, as one among many competing institutions that one os free to join or quit at any time and for any reason. The Church is seen by Catholics as the Bride of Christ, instituted among men by Jesus Himself.

CCC - 874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.

"Whatever one may think of its theology and ecclesiology, the cold heart fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is not just one more institution among others. Structurally and doctrinally, it is the emblem par excellence of the ancient world, a continual reminder to our generation that its life did not begin yesterday, and that Western civilization would be unrecognizable, and probably nonexistent, without it, the Catholic Church reminds us as well that we are living off of a cultural capital that was millennia in the making. Its unabashed affirmation of the centrality of tradition to right conduct, its hierarchical conception of authority, its exclusion of females and homosexuals from the priesthood, and its demand that its clergy take a vow of celibacy are some of the more salient respects in which the Catholic Church has not only distinguished itself from the leveling impulses of our age, but resisted them."

– Jack Kerwick, The Catholic Church and the Left, American Thinker, February 20, 2011

[D-fendr]

...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?

In essence what I'm asking is 'as opposed to any and all others'. It is the general question of authority. How do you determine what is authoritative for you? I asked in general or, if you'd like, using the specific example of your cite referenced here, Drakes.

As has been noted several times, much of this comes down to a question of authority. That's at the root of my questions here.

Earlier I had asked for the source authority of your dating of Paul's epistles, since this seemed critical to your theology. I didn't receive a reply.

So both the specific and general questions remain, if you'd like to answer for yourself, according to your methodology and beliefs.

thanks for your posts.

[MarkBsnr]

Your statement about following Paul: Perhaps you can give an example. I've heard similar thoughts expressed outside of FR and never have I seen any example of a statement pitting Paul contra or to the exclusion of Christ. Got an example? Hmmm?

My closest example - you've seen them here as well as outside of FR - is that of those who follow their own interpretation of Paul to the exclusion of the Gospels. I have never claimed Paul did not preach the Gospel; I claim that those who follow Paul and exclude the Gospels are doing it wrong.

For example, we have our very own smvoice and metmom on this very thread. Notice that we have the mythical division of the Twelve versus Paul. Let us see what smvoice has to say in post 217:

Can it be any clearer? Jesus Christ had mercy on Paul, Paul is the pattern for us to follow as he followed Christ. Not Peter and the 11. You would be following them and their gospel of the Kingdom, which is to Israel, and which is in abeyance now, until the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. Those who are in heresy situations are those who are using PETER and the 11 as patterns to follow to life everlasting. According to Jesus Christ. You may not like what you read, but that doesn't change the truth of God's word. You follow the wrong pattern, you end up in deceit and heresy. Paul is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during this age of grace, the Church the Body of Christ. Peter is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during the age of the law, His earthly ministry, and the Millennial Kingdom, the Millenial Church.

Notice what is being said, as well as implied (although that has been said often enough in the past). The Gospels are moot. The Twelve and all that they've been taught by Christ don't matter to the Church - they're to the Jews only, don't you see? It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself.

That is what we have been saying.