Skip to comments.The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
By Gary Michuta
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.
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 youll 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 didnt know that the Apocrypha was omitted, youd 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 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:
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 Dont
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.
Neither the Pope or any Ecumenical Councils “officially” approved of the canons until the Council of Trent. Look it up. Given the historical errors included in the Apocrypha I cant see how they view them as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
No, the date doesn’t matter. There’s no ‘before... after, Jews, Gentiles, Jesus, Paul, Peter’ in the Church theology.
The Church teaches Peter was in Rome, here’s an article debating the question:
The article is based on sources I consider authoritative on this question, Holy Scripture and writings of Church Fathers/Early Christians. I would have thought you already know what I consider authorities on different areas and matters.
>>>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.
Ok, so now will you reciprocate?
How do you suppose Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate without the "official" Canon established at the Council of Rome in 382 AD?
No wonder they dismiss the Millennial reign of Christ on earth after the end of the Tribulation - it messes up the Church being the "New Israel". Whether or not some understand the differences between Israel and the Church, it matters the most when the Gospel of the grace of God is commingled with the Gospel of the Kingdom. That's when the REAL problem of faith plus works for salvation starts out. Some people read the "Beatitudes" and insist that they are commandments of Jesus for how to go to Heaven. Then when we show that Paul teaches about the Gospel of the grace of God and state that it is NOT by our works that we are saved, we get pounded with the explanation that "The words of Jesus override the words of Paul - that mere bishop". It never seems to sink in that the ENTIRE Bible IS the word of Jesus Christ and God does not contradict himself.
I totally get what you are trying to say, but, for some, it will be like pulling teeth to get them to admit the wisdom of it simply because it has not been "blessed" by their all-knowing infallible magesterium. The same magesterium that is incapable of admitting they could ever be wrong about anything. Those that seek God's truth with all their hearts and with diligence and honesty WILL find it. Of that we can be sure. "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth", is in there for a reason!
There's no debating about it...
Still making up false stories, eh??? Some I suppose, would stoop to such a tactic for being unable to defend some of the nonsense that they post...
Ah, but to SEE the difference, suddenly the blinders of "religion" are removed, and God's Word flows uninterrupted and uncontradicted.
Since God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, then the path, rightly dividing His Word of Truth, should be obvious. And so desired by anyone who truly wants to serve Him and be approved unto Him, unashamed and unwavering. 2 Tim. 2:15. Thank you and Cynical Bear for your great posts of truth and unwavering stand to preach the word, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine. :) God Bless!
same old iscool. The guy who claimed he was a Catholic, then a Modalist, then ... flip-flop, D U uhhh
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
Perhaps you should avoid the bible during your religious teaching...
true — that remark by izzie on “Still making up false stories” is making it personal. Thanks RM
A rather misleading selection and conclusions which do not follow. I gave you from Scripture the Commission of the 12 from Matthew, Mark and Luke (in Acts). Significantly before Paul was recruited by God.
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.
I know all about Paul's ministry and how it merges with the Twelve, or really, complements it. Let me post a short piece which really shows that your premise is totally wrong at its base.
Jesus told the apostles that they would Sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk. 22:30). In what way would the apostles judge the twelve tribes of Israel? First, we need to realize that Jesus was speaking here metaphorically. The twelve tribes of Israel is not to be taken literally in this passage. Jesus was not referring to the literal twelve tribes. His reference was to the church, Gods spiritual Israel (Gal. 6:16). James also used the twelve tribes figuratively to refer to Christians (Jms. 1:1). Paul used it this way in Romans 9:6 (See also Rom. 2:29).
Now that weve determined that the apostles were to judge the church, in what way was this judging to be done? Paul taught in Ephesians 2:20 that the apostles were in a sense the foundation upon which the house of God had been built, with Christ as the Chief cornerstone. When we answer the question as to how the apostles were the foundation, we will answer the question as to how they judge the church.
The apostles were the foundation of the church in the sense that it was through their preaching and teaching that the church was established (Acts 2). They taught only the gospel of Christ as revealed to them by Jesus Himself through the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that after he departed, the Holy Spirit would come to teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (Jn. 12:26). If you will remember, just before the church was established on Pentecost, the apostles were told to wait until the Holy Spirit came upon them and directed their teaching. This is exactly what happened! And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). It was because of this preaching that many believed and obeyed, resulting in the establishing of the church (Acts 2:40,41,47).
The apostles judge the twelve tribes of Israel (the Church) by preaching and teaching the Gospel truths of Jesus Christ as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:37, the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. Pauls teaching, as well as the teaching of the other apostles, were the commandments of the Lord. This teaching always judged the lives of others. It either judged them to be faithful Christians, unfaithful Christians, or alien sinners. When they heard the teachings of the apostles, their minds were brought to the point of acknowledging what spiritual state they were in. This is the sense in which the apostles judged the twelve tribes of Israel.
By the way, if you are a Christian, you are part of the Israel of God. And the apostles doctrine, the New Testament, is your judge. It is this doctrine that will judge you in the last day (Jn. 12:48). How are you measuring up to the standard?
This is from http://www.defendthegospel.com/topical/judging_tribes.html - a Church of Christ and not Catholic at all. They get it, right here.
"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.
Uh huh. Then why did Paul normally go to the Jews first and preach in their synagogues wherever he went? Why did Peter convert the first Gentile and not Paul?
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.
And not yours, or any man's. The Church of Christ dude had it exactly right. Christ is the basis of the Church and the reason for it. He just built it upon Peter and the Apostles. Paul's part was to save the Church by being that salesman (all things to all men). Or how would you interpret that? With all the times that Paul nearly got killed by the people he hacked off, how would you interpret that? Paul is unconventional, to be sure. Yet he got results.
And a bunch of people who follow him like he was a god, instead of being the fantastic servant of the Church that he actually was. You think that I have a problem with Paul? Nope. I somewhat identify with him.
It is those who would usurp his true legacy in order to fulfill their own antiCatholic fantasies that I have a problem with.
You may wish to check out a certain decree by Pope Damasus, prompted by the Council of Rome, in 382.
Very good. You beat me to it.
Great minds think alike.
I post the Scripture where Paul actually is converted in Acts 9 and get argued with by a yahoo who posts a distant metaphor from the Pauline Scriptures. I think that I'll post both accounts from Acts.
Acts 9: 3On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.c 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?d 5He said, Who are you, sir? The reply came, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.e 6Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.f 7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.g 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing;* so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.h 9For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank.
Acts 22: On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me.c 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?d 8I replied, Who are you, sir? And he said to me, I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.e 9My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.f 10I asked, What shall I do, sir? The Lord answered me, Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.g 11Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light, I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.h
He saw a blinding light. Maybe some people think that today if you want to see God, stare into a spotlight. Perhaps they have. I wonder if our separated brethren have been staring into a coloured disco ball.
Great minds think alike.
I am in the company of good men in the service of God. With God's blessing, we may accomplish much for His Glory.
Again we see the modern progression in some camps away from orthodox Christianity towards the heterodoxy of Dispensationalism.
It’s only through knowledge of the history of the Church - including the Reformation - that these innovations can be fully ‘appreciated’.
I'm still waiting for someone to present a reconciliation of Millennialism's 1,000 year kingdom with the "kingdom shall have no end" declaration in Luke 1:33 and as espoused in the Nicene Creed.
Thank you for a terrific Bible lesson; just one more example the RCC makes things up and calls it Christianity when it is closer to paganism than true belief.
Anyone who reads the Bible learns the difference, God willing.