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.

 

[presently no screen name]

there many thousands of persons crucified by the Romans so the cross itself was nothing special.

WOW!! WOW!! WOW!! Learn what happened AT THE CROSS - HE didn't just give up the ghost like your 'many thousands of persons'.

Scripture points out that there were two other persons crucified with Jesus, one clearly not deserving of Salvation.

NO ONE IS DESERVING. The one who did receive salvation knew that.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome.

Poor 'victim' Rome! Who the heck ever thinks of Rome when they look at the cross but pagans/deceived. They were, merely, 'used' to fulfill the will of God. They had no might.

It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.

The Roman Empire couldn't do ANYTHING to Jesus because HE GAVE HIMSELF WILLINGLY, He came to give His Life! It is Written.

AND "Do you think I cannot call on My Father, and He will, at once, put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:53

Everyone who was and will be conceived put JESUS on the cross because ALL need/needed a Savior. John 3:16

"Resurrection and the Life" ......Easter, the most Holy Day in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar

Christians call it and celebrate - RESURRECTION SUNDAY! Thank You, JESUS!!

[smvoice]

Why was Christ resurrected?

[stfassisi]

I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

I concur,dear friend.

Nice to see you back,and I love your gentle humble demeanor in dealing with others these days

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The “Bible according to” each redeemed man’s renewed conscience, led and taught by the Holy Spirit, a merciful and unearned gift of God.

Read your Bible. That’s how it works. If a child can grasp the truth of Jesus Christ, you and I should be able to understand, God willing.

[Natural Law]

"Nice to see you back,and I love your gentle humble demeanor in dealing with others these days"Thank you, but the credit goes to God.

A while back I entered into Diaconate formation which caused me to examine my entire life. I saw what participation in the Religion Forum was doing to me and the kind of person the repeated exposure to the corrosive comments was making me become and I didn't like what I saw.

I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me. If I walked away from FR I had to be prepared to walk away from the whole world and that would be counter to the mission of the Diaconate, which is to serve God and His Church by serving the Gospel, the Liturgy and Charity.

I also realized that the anti-Catholic and non-Christian behavior cannot harm God or the Church and can only harm me if I react to it in a non-Christian manner. I also know that every scheme or stunt Satan devises to compromise Christians can be the stick we use to beat him if we react to it as Christians.

Gob Bless you.

[D-fendr]

So was Calvin the one not ‘led and taught by the Holy Spirit’ or was Arminius?

How does that work?

[Natural Law]

"Read your Bible. That’s how it works. If a child can grasp the truth of Jesus Christ, you and I should be able to understand, God willing."

If we are going to engage in dialog about God we should at least endeavor to do it honestly. I understand and appreciate the simplistic approach to Scriptural interpretation, but no one on these threads, you included, actually does this. In your posting history are numerous citations of non-Scriptural sources, not the least among them being the writings of Jean Calvin.

The reasonable man can only conclude that the point of contention is not the reliance upon secondary sources, but upon the selection and credibility of those sources and how we rationalize or justify our acceptance of them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No man has all the answers. Calvin was more correct than Arminius.

If you expect anything in this life to be perfect, you will be disappointed.

I never promised you a rose garden. 8~)

[Natural Law]

"WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!"

Jesus commanded, and St. Paul reminded, to treat each other with love and respect, not ridicule, scorn and derision.

We would all do well to remember that, before the Scripture was Canonized, to address the disputes over doctrine, the Church developed the Creeds, to articulate the articles of faith. Catholics fully embrace the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, as I hope you do. I pray that you will accept Him and put your anger behind you.

Peace be with you and may you celebrate a spiritful Holy Week and a Joyous Easter.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I agree on the rose garden. :)

How does one determine whether Calvin was more correct than Arminius or vice-versa? And, if one chooses between the two views, there are quite radically different conclusions and results in one’s faith.

I think, as NL indicates, it is a question of authority. You seem to hold, like many on here, that it ultimately falls on each individual to decide and determine all these questions.

I think that is impractical and unworkable, with the result quite contrary to One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

So, as I’ve said often here: sola scriptura is both unscriptural and fails in practice.

Other than that...

:)

[stfassisi]

I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me.

It's the same reason why I take long breaks away too.

But, that said ,there is a demonic presence on some threads that no responses are ever needed because they are dangerous traps,only prayer and fasting can help

The are many things on FR that tear at my heart and I bring with me to pray for at Adoration

I wish you a blessed day!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The only “authority” belongs to the Holy Spirit. And it is the responsibility of the Holly Spirit to lead our understanding of the Bible as we read and study it.

I believe Calvin was more correct than Arminius because his theology lines up with Scripture more than Arminius’.

As Harleyd once said, it was only after he studied Calvinism and Augustine did the Bible make real sense. I believe that, too. Reading the Bible with the idea that God is preeminent and has ordained all that exists and occurs clarifies both the good and the bad that happen to us in this life. This is how people used to read the Bible for centuries, including children.

“All things work for the good of those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose.” — Romans 8:28

"Called according to His purpose..."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All men are fallen and all men deserve hell.

For reasons known only to God, some men are chosen to received the free, unearned, unmerited gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

If that includes you, your life should be filled with gratitude, obedience and joy.

Mine is. Thank you, God, for your free gift of salvation. Thank you, Jesus, for your sacrifice on my behalf. Thank you, Holy Spirit, for inhabiting my life and leading me to Christ.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When i said Mary was no one’s mother but Jesus, I phrased the sentence awkwardly. I believe Mary had several other children, as the Bible tells us.

I do not believe, as the RCC teaches, that Mary is the “Mother of the Universe” and the “Mother of all believers.”

That is sacrilege and appears no one where in the Bible. In fact, it is contradicted by Christ when he corrects the crowd’s error to say his real mother and family are not Mary and his brothers and sisters, but all true believers.

Roman Catholics simply ignore those oft-repeated (read inconvenient) verses.

[Natural Law]

"The “Bible according to” each redeemed man’s renewed conscience,..."

There is no doubt that the role of conscience plays a significant role in ones conversion, but conscience is not itself the source of the moral law. To be redeemed it must be informed and the moral judgment enlightened learning, reason and prayer.

[Natural Law]

"I believe Mary had several other children, as the Bible tells us."

Fortunately, for you and me, this isn't a question of "he said - she said" in which the outcome will be determined based upon our individual credibilities. This is a long standing disagreement between two opposing sets of authorities. Your chosen authorities believe Scripture is interpreted one way, mine another. I don't see any immediate resolution, at last not while either of us is alive. In the mean time, lets share common ground and rejoice in the Lord. The last thing Jesus or Mary would want is for this to divide Christendom especially now that it is under attack.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

2 CORINTHIANS 1:12

"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward."

[smvoice]

"Actually, the Cross is important, but only in the context of the Resurrection.".

I then asked you "why Christ was resurrected". Which you never answered. But that's okay. I'll answer it, because it is important.

God was able to resurrect Jesus Christ because the penalty for OUR SINS had been paid IN FULL, BY THE CROSS. It is at the Cross that "we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD" (Eph. 1:7), "we are JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD" (Rom. 5:9), "RECONCILED TO GOD by the DEATH OF HIS SON" (Rom. 5:10), "made nigh BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST" (Eph. 2:13) and "made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God IN HIM" because "GOD HATH MADE HIM TO BE SIN FOR US" (2 Cor. 5:21).

It IS THE CROSS that makes the Resurrection of Christ OUR GUARANTEE that OUR SINS ARE PAID FOR. If there had been ONE SIN that Christ had not died for, God the Father could not have raised Him from the dead, because the penalty for even a single sin is death. The FACT that God was able to raise Christ from the dead is our guarantee from Him that IT IS FINISHED.

"For THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God..."But WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:18,20,22-24).

Do Catholics not believe that it was at the Cross that all their sins were paid for by Christ?

[Natural Law]

Amen