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.

 

[smvoice]

Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days and just got back today...to THIS post 371 of yours??

Actually, I don't believe you know at all about Paul's ministry and how "it merges with the Twelve, or really, complements it." So you believe that Jesus Christ was speaking metaphorically to the Twelve when He promised them they would be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel during His Millennial reign? You believe He was actually speaking about the "church", God's spiritual Israel.?? James, too...And Paul...?

"WE" haven't determined anything of the sort that the APostles were to "judge the church" OR that the message of the Twelve and Paul were the same. How, for instance, do you explain this Scripture?

"According to the GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise masterbuilder, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon, But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."1 Cor. 3:10.

WHAT??? Paul SPECIFICALLY says, by the Holy Spirit, that HE laid the FOUNDATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD. He goes on: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." v. 11.

Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone for the Kingdom gospel, the Messianic Church built by the Twelve, AND the gospel of the grace of God, built by Paul. BOTH with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. But ONE is for an earthly kingdom of believers, Israel, and the OTHER is for a heavenly body of believers, US.

I've told you MANY times before why Paul went to the Jews first. Either you don't read my posts, or you forget very easily. He had a ministry of confirmation that Christ was Israel's Messiah, and he performed that ministry as long as Israel was operational. But he also had a ministry of revelation to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace. The reconciliation of God and man BY THE GOSPEL. The formation of the Church the Body of Christ.

The Church the Body of Christ was NOT built on Peter and the Apostles.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the GOSPEL which was preached of me is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." Gal. 1:11,12. That verse, along with 1 Cor. 3:10, that I gave you earlier, should make it very clear.

Next I'm going to give you about 10 points concerning Paul's ministry, to compare with the points I gave you concernining the ministry of the Twelve. Then we can compare the two, and see if indeed, they "merge", or are the same.

ONe more thing, it's not "anti-catholic fantasies" that drive us. It's the TRUTH of God's Word, rightly divided, that drives us. It's preaching the word, reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine that drives us. It's the absolute disgust with deceit and charlatans that drive us. It's studying the word to be an effective workman for God, one who does not want to be ashamed when we stand before Him, that drives us. If you see your church in any of those reasons, I would check my Bible for more information.

[smvoice]

I think I have also explained to you why Peter converted the first Gentile, not Paul. But I will explain it again. Although just reading the Scriptures on it should be enough. Acts, Chapter 10. Peter has a vision. WHAT?? WHY on earth would God need to show Peter a vision about Cornelius? Weren't the Twelve instructed to go ALL the world, every nation, with the gospel? There should have been NO REASON to give Peter a vision of something he already knew. UNLESS something else is going on here. And of course, according to Scripture, it is.

This is Acts 10, remember that. The Twelve have been empowered by the Holy Spirit since the Day of Pentecost. Preaching the gospel of the grace of God and the Body of Christ...WAIT...that's WRONG..they've been preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, the restoration of Israel, and Israel's acceptance of Christ as Messiah since the day of Pentecost... But that should still be okay to go to Cornelius, after all, the gospel IS the gospel, right?

"Then Peter went down to the men which were sent u nto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek; what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, AND ONE THAT FEARETH GOD, and of GOOD REPORT AMONG ALL THE NATION OF THE JEWS, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and the hear the words of thee." 10:21.

Make no mistake, Peter didn't jump on the first train and make haste to Cornelius to save a Gentile, Acts 10: 17 says that Peter DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN"...

What's more: "ANd he (Peter) said unto them (those who had gathered together), Ye KNOW how that it is an UNLAWFUL THING for a man who IS A JEW to KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."Acts10:27,28.

This Apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit and with power was given a VISION to go to Cornelius. OBVIOUSLY it was a SPECIAL EVENT. He even DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THE VISION MEANT. Not exactly a "take the gospel to all nations" kind of event, Mark.

and BTW, Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), was saved in Acts 9. So what was the point in God sending a vision to Peter to go to Cornelius, the Gentile? So that, when Paul came to the Twelve with his gospel to the Gentiles, Peter would have a starting place with Gentiles. That vision from God. That he doubted. Because he knew it was unlawful to come unto one of another nation. THAT'S how Peter knew Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was true. And therefore loosed himself and the 11 to take the gospel of the kingdom to all nations, giving the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, with their gospel of the grace of God. That's what Galatians, Chapter 2 is all about.

[D-fendr]

>>>>”Next I’m going to give you...”

Perhaps a couple of links could save the time:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/scofield/

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/MISCELLA/34031_4E.html

[smvoice]

Well, thank you for your helpful concern. But since I have not even posted the FIRST, how could you know what I’m going to post? Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions, or just attempting to read my mind? Now, because I do not go to links to get information, I can tell you already your attempts are in vain. But don’t let that stop you.

[smvoice]

AMEN, bb. It’s all there, just waiting to be READ...:)

[D-fendr]

Just linking to the inventors themselves. Are you claiming you came up with this theology by yourself, this is original with you?

I think not. The links aren’t mind reading at all; you’ll see the same exegesis and arguments there - just closer to the sources.

>>>” I do not go to links to get information..”

Really? I don’t think I’ve ever met an interweb user who didn’t get information from links.

[smvoice]

Really? I think I’ve told you many times that I do not go to links for information. I give you the sources I use, including authors, chapter numbers, page numbers, and column numbers, if available. Or didn’t you notice that in my posts? As many times as you’ve asked, is how many times I have told you this. It really should be a moot point by now..Anyone can go to any link that person wants to, and gleen any information available. I’m just telling you (agai) that is not what I do personally. But thanks for bringing it up again. It never hurts to remind some over and over.

[D-fendr]

Like I said, it’s hard to believe there’s an internet user who doesn’t get information from links.

Obviously you get information on FR from links, but I guess they don’t count and you never go to the source article link?

Never do Google searches? Surely you’ve done google or bing searches, yes?

[smvoice]

Yes, I'm sorry, I do Google searches. For Williams-Sonoma.com and Amazon, and Food Network. Do those count?

If a person spent as much time actually studying God's Word rather than linking to links that link to other links, that would be a person much better equipped to be an effective workman for Christ. IMHO, of course. But there could be a link available that discounts that belief. You'll let me know?...

[D-fendr]

>>>” I do Google searches. For Williams-Sonoma.com and Amazon, and Food Network.”

Three bookmarks and your done with Google. :)

Boy, you’re more luddite than even I am !

There’s tons of info on the internet, including several bibles, Christian classics, sermons, etc. There’s videos sermons of the preacher whose book you referenced before. You can google terms you’re not familiar with and much more.

And that’s just religion.

The two links I posted are from *books* real books, maybe they don’t count as links?

Scofield and Darby. If you haven’t read them you’ve read others strongly influenced by them. I think you’d enjoy their... books.

:)

[MarkBsnr]

Very good. It's interesting that the highlighted and intricate lengthy posts with multiple fonts or bolding etc. tend to exactly match certain websites.

I endeavour to attribute any websites' content that I use. I wish that the antiCatholics in their haste would do the same.

[boatbums]

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.

Masterful conclusion...

Our opponents' stunned silence is very reassuring.

Srsly??? If by "opponents" you mean those indicted as "a bunch of people who follow him (Paul) like he was a god...", then it should certainly NOT be reassuring, very or otherwise, nor surprising that "they" have not responded. No, my dear Mark, there is no response simply because no one of this imagined "bunch" post on Free Republic much less on this thread.

I genuinely hate to burst anyone's bubble and I sure hope my words do not cause you undue uncertainty but I would be remiss if I left a FRiend relishing in something of which he has no reason TO relish. :o)

[CynicalBear]

>>I am discussing why and how Jesus instituted a teaching authority within the Church<<

Show from scripture where Jesus “instituted a teaching authority within the Church”. This whole hierarchy that the RCC has set up is non Biblical.

[Natural Law]

"Show from scripture where Jesus “instituted a teaching authority within the Church”. This whole hierarchy that the RCC has set up is non Biblical."

Please try to focus on a single issue at a time. You have introduced three completely separate issues in to your a priori dismissal of Catholicism. I will address them one at a time:

Sola Scriptura has been discussed ad naseum in these threads and the reasons for Catholicism rejecting it have been stated thousands of times. As a Catholic I reject it as the standard for establishing a Truth. When you are able to establish that Sola Scriptura is itself completely scriptural I will again engage in a discussion of it.

A teaching authority is established in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church. Why else would an Episcopacy have been established and referred to frequently by St. Paul? Evidence of this is found in Acts 15:

"The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;". Acts 15:6-8.

The "RCC" did not set up a hierarchy, Jesus did. The Gospels tell us exactly how and why Jesus established that His Church would be hierarchical, having Bishops (episcopoi), Priests (presbuteroi) and Deacons (diakonoi) and that it would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance. He also established that the first Pope was Peter.

Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.

In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.

In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). "Who do you say that I am?". This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.

Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Teaching elders, Bible reading and study, all led by the Holy Spirit, is the Biblically-mandated instruction as to learning God’s will and our way.

Scripture explains Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that says Mary was more than a chaste, naive and faithful Jew. The RCC has turned her into a pathetic superhero who literally usurps the role of our only King and Savior.

Shame. God cannot be pleased.

The Bible is not difficult to read. Try it...without a Greek lexicon. I bet you’ll understand quite a bit.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Revelation is a poetic dream from God — a lovely way to end the Scriptures.

[D-fendr]

Teaching elders, Bible reading and study, all led by the Holy Spirit, is the Biblically-mandated instruction as to learning God’s will and our way.

Are you modifying sola scriptura here by including teaching elders? Or would you maintain that Holy Scripture supports sola scriptura, defined as: scripture alone, by itself, is entirely sufficient for all teaching, doctrine, etc?

[D-fendr]

Revelation is a poetic dream from God..

Interesting view. However, your doctrine, Calvinist double predestination, salvation by election and damnation before birth, is a nightmare god.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Your “understanding” of Calvinism, which is simply Biblical Christianity, continues to be zilch.

Study to show thyself approved...

Or at least not so ignorant of the faith that founded this country.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Scripture alone is sufficient for a satisfactory understanding of this life and the next, God willing.

Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide your study.

Sola Scriptura includes discussions. Much like what we’re doing now. “Study to show thyself approved.” The Jews know how to do it. Most Protestants, teaching elders included, know how to do it.

It’s Roman Catholics who have so little understanding of the Bible that when they are challenged, they can do nothing but fall back on rote responses from their aging, insular magisterium.

A priest is not “another Christ.” Mary is not “our mother” and she plays no “part in our salvation.” The pope is simple a teaching elder whose lessons are often wrong. The Bible is our final rule for faith and conduct.

Not so difficult.