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.

 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You know the secret of gratitude, Harley. How fortunate you are. God bless you always.

[D-fendr]

Whatever exegesis you arrive at, we can know that:

A god that dooms some to eternal hell before birth is not the Christian God.

A god that created man without free will choice is not the Christian God (in addition to making Christ’s ministry nonsensical and devoid of meaning.)

Salvation by election is not Christian doctrine.

[Natural Law]

"Salvation by election is not Christian doctrine."

God desires that all be saved and He has provided sufficient grace to overcome all sin, yet all are not saved. Why?

Some attempt to answer that by claiming the tenets of Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election. That God picks winners and losers based upon whim. I reject that because I refuse to believe that God subjected His Son and mankind to a cruel, meaningless joke.

[HarleyD]

Gen 3:22-24 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. "

Adam and Eve were NEVER given a "choice" about eating from the tree of life. God knew what their choice would be knowing what they had just lost. In fact, not only did God prevent it, God placed some pretty tough dude angels around it just so they COULDN'T partake of the tree of life.

You can only come to the wedding feast if you're invited. Those are the biblical facts.

[D-fendr]

Is your free will choice, here for example, to reply or not, an illusion?

[HarleyD]

That God picks winners and losers based upon whim.

God never picks anyone on a "whim". There is a reason and a plan for everything. God would be perfectly righteous to toss the lot of us into the burning, tormenting flames of hell. And don't feel sorry. I am totally convinced as C.S. Lewis stated, that mankind would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. Like Lazarus looking at the feast of Abraham, he never begged forgiveness or repented even as he looked on that wonderful feast. He only asked for a drop of water. That is our nature unless God replaces it. We are rebellious, stubborn and evil.

Saying we are "winners" and the unbelievers as "losers" is simply the wrong terminology. Christians have too high opinions of themselves to think they won anything. We haven't. We are promised trials and tribulations. And unbelievers haven't lost anything because they never had it in the first place. Frankly, they don't care about salvation. Just ask any atheist.

The real mystery isn't why God would cast anyone into hell. The real mystery is why God would bother to save any of us.

[D-fendr]

God never picks anyone on a "whim".

I believe the Westminster Confession makes it clear that salvation of the elect is most certainly not based on anything we would recognize as 'just'. Would you agree?

Frankly, they don't care about salvation.

But that is irrelevant in terms of election, yes? God decides that before we are born.

And unbelievers haven't lost anything because they never had it in the first place.

Why didn't they have it and why do the elect?

The non-elect gain eternal torment; the elect gain everlasting life. Why?How is your answer different than: "Fate." ?

Christian scripture and teaching is salvation by grace through faith, not salvation by election.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Can you choose to believe in Him? Are you only posting what you have no choice but to say? Could you change your mind and your theology?

[D-fendr]

And, finally:

If it could be demonstrated to you that you had free will choice, would you believe it is true?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Because He chose to love us first, before we loved Him.

That’s why gratitude is our proper attitude.

As usual, great post,Harley, which gives all glory to God and to Christ, our Savior.

[Natural Law]

"God would be perfectly righteous to toss the lot of us into the burning, tormenting flames of hell."

God is omnipotent and omniscient, He could, and would be perfectly righteous in doing anything......and yet He doesn't. Mankind is unique among the mortal creatures because of the knowledge of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and the accompanying free will.

[Natural Law]

"If it could be demonstrated to you that you had free will choice, would you believe it is true?"

I think it largely comes down to what purpose God had for mankind and each of us. Some would have you believe that we are nothing more than Playdough, shaped, toyed with and eventually either discarded or put on a shelf so that God could admire His own work. I reject that. Not because it violates any personal notions of what God ought to be or do, but because it violates both reason and Scripture.

Evil exists, not because God created it and authored all evil deeds, but because it is the natural consequence of free will. There can be no free will to choose good if evil does not exist. There can be no Salvation without voluntary damnation.

Death exists only as an affirmation of the purpose of life in an otherwise meaningless existence. The world could carry on its Godless plan for eternity if there were no death. Archbishop Fulton Sheen said it best:

"Death proves also that life has meaning because it reveals that the virtues and goodness practiced within time do not find their completion except in eternity."

[D-fendr]

Very good.

“... life has meaning...” Yes. It would seem an oxymoron to posit a religion of meaningless.

To “ it violates both reason and Scripture” I would add “basic human experience.” Calvinism results in a cosmos devoid of meaning where the human experience is an illusion.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But you’ve been shown countless times you do not have free will and yet you ignore the fact.

You can’t fly by flapping your arms; you can’t see if you are blind and if God has chosen you for salvation, you will be saved because the Holy Spirit is stronger than you.

God is in control since before the foundation of the world.

Thank God. I trust God’s will more than my own.

[D-fendr]

You can’t fly by flapping your arms; you can’t see if you are blind

And I can't become a cheetah and run down a gazelle. All of which have nothing whatsoever to do with free will choice.

But you’ve been shown countless times you do not have free will

No, I'm shown every waking minute that I do.

Question: Why do you believe you do not have free will?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Because God creates the heart.

[D-fendr]

Why does this cause you to believe you do not have free will?

[Natural Law]

"I would add “basic human experience.” Calvinism results in a cosmos devoid of meaning where the human experience is an illusion."

I can't completely accept the role of "basic human experience" because too often experience is shaped or warped by human thought and error. It also leads to error in that my perception of it can be similarly distorted and would go against my need to a greater authority in these matters.

I can't completely discount Calvinists and Calvinism because I know many who sincerely love God with all of their heart and soul. I also know many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus who are true to their concepts of God and justice. Do they err? Of course, some significantly, but we all do to one degree or another. The finite human mind is just not capable of understanding the infinite.

The Church teaches that all are called to God because that is where we all came from and that within each human heart is a void that can only be filled by God. All major religions and denominations contain a ray of light and truth and that truth is from God. It is our mission as Christians to spread the Word and help to remove the error. I have found that a sharp tongue, a cold shoulder and a crooked finger only hinder the process. As I have witnessed in my own life light can shine through even a broken and dirty window.

[D-fendr]

Our perceptions and experience are not perfect nor unlimited. We do not have completely free will, but neither do we have no free will.

In Christian terms and experience, Christ tells us to love God and neighbor as ourself. Without free will, this commandment- and his ministry - are nonsense, absurd.

And without any free will at all, what is repentance?

[MarkBsnr]

The Church teaches that all are called to God because that is where we all came from and that within each human heart is a void that can only be filled by God. All major religions and denominations contain a ray of light and truth and that truth is from God. It is our mission as Christians to spread the Word and help to remove the error. I have found that a sharp tongue, a cold shoulder and a crooked finger only hinder the process. As I have witnessed in my own life light can shine through even a broken and dirty window.

Both are wrong.

[HarleyD]

Is your free will choice...

There is no "free will". There is just the will of God and the will of men. The will of God is absolutely fixed on righteousness and holiness. The will of men is bent towards doing bad things. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

This is the plight of all men. The ONLY thing that separates Christians from non-Christians is that we serve the law of God with my mind, but with our flesh we serve the law of sin.

And I'm sure God won't mine me plagurizing Romans 7:18-25.