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.

 

[HarleyD]

There is no such thing as free will. There is God’s will and there is man’s will. God’s will is good. Man’s will is against God’s will and is evil. Otherwise it would be God’s will.

Tell me. If you have free will, then why don’t you do God’s will every single moment of your Christian life? After all, you ARE free to choose aren’t you?

[Natural Law]

"If you have free will, then why don’t you do God’s will every single moment of your Christian life?"

As Catholics we do not accept Total Deprivation as described by Calvin. While we concede that there is a deprivation of original holiness, we believe that human nature has not been totally corrupted.

Through original sin human nature is wounded and inclined to sin. We call that inclination concupiscence". However, the sanctifying Grace of Baptism erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but our nature remains weakened and inclined to sin requiring a state of spiritual battle.

[Notwithstanding]

The KJV in many places copied the then-existing English language scriptures that were Catholic.

Why do you claim the Holy Scriptures were not available in English before KJV, when the historical facts are otherwise?

[editor-surveyor]

The point has been made by others, some of them knowledgable catholics, that the English language didn’t even exist before the time of the KJV. The “english” Geneva edition of that time would not be understandable to most readers now.

[MarkBsnr]

Lol. Both are wrong???

Yes. Both Calvin and Arminius were wrong.

You clearly do not understand Arminianism. It is the same as Catholicism. “I choose freely...”

Negative. Arminianism consists of faith alone (I choose to have faith). They are born dead and can choose to have life. Catholics disagree. We are born mortally wounded, and it is not enough to simply hold on the life preserver of Grace. But Calvinists do not believe a in life preserver. They are born dead and only the elect are plucked. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is Scripturally correct.

And your slogans are correct only if you think your t-shirt is God.

Neither God nor Dagon. I am not Calvinist. Neither am I Arminian.

[MarkBsnr]

That's what Jesus and Paul tell us.... Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. 1 Corinthians 11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ

Shoot, you can go back farther than that. God was constantly telling the Israelites that they were to be holy to the Lord. Fat lot of good it did them.

Are you telling me that either God was incompetent in His instructions to the Israelites or else He was deliberately telling them to do something meaningless?

So it is not by our strength that we do anything. As our Lord stated, "Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And as Paul stated, "I can do all things in him [sic:Christ] (Phil 4:13) who strengthens me."

But doing nothing is not an option. Without God's Grace, we cannot be saved. All men are Judged on their last day. And not for the seat number in the celestial football stadium that some folks think that the Judgement means.

We are to encourage one another to good works, but those good works are the results of God's Spirit choosing to work through us. We submit to God but it is only because God helps us to submit to Him.

We are in accord. However, if everything is predestined, then I need behave only as I see fit whenever I see that fitness occur. By my own judgement, and not His.

[Natural Law]

"We are in accord."

But we would rather be in BMW.......

[MarkBsnr]

How about a 2700 horsepower Dagger GT?

[Notwithstanding]

The Catholic Church made the scriptures available in vernacular English of the day, contrary to the old saw that the Church did not want people to know the scriptures.

[D-fendr]

My “free will choices” were determined by God from before the foundation of the world.

Then God is the cause of all your sins. And your reality of choosing is only an illusion.

[D-fendr]

There is no such thing as free will.

Why do you choose to repeat this as you demonstrate otherwise?

If you have free will, then why don’t you do God’s will every single moment of your Christian life?

Because I'm not perfect.

Part of it is knowledge and experience; I make much better choices now than before. But I'm still not perfect, I still have weaknesses, we all do. I have limitations and illnesses; we all do. But our imperfection does not negate free will. Free will does not necessarily require perfection. This is clearly a non sequitur argument you have constructed.

You've glommed onto a simplistic, un-realistic answer to the human condition and built a whole theology around it. Rather, adopted Calvin's.

To you it makes sense, unless you see the reality of your own free will choices. It requires a kind of blindness to the true human condition, the struggle and responsibilities, challenges, successes and failures. And those of others. It most closely resembles attributing everything to Fate. IMHO, it is a philosophical escape.

One last question before I'm off for a few days. It's one I asked twice earlier; if you'd give it your best shot, I'd appreciate it.

If it were demonstrated to you that you have free will, would you believe it is true?

Please take this as a hypothetical: assume that it were demonstrated to your satisfaction, whatever requirements that entails. Then, would you believe it?

Thank you again, Harley. It truly is wonderful to have intelligent, thoughtful and courteous folks with whom to debate these issues on here.

God bless...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Did God create you and me with a desire to disobey?

All men are fallen, something RCs forget.

[Notwithstanding]

You embrace perverted sects with a perverted Gospel.

[HarleyD]

As Catholics we do not accept Total Deprivation as described by Calvin. While we concede that there is a deprivation of original holiness, we believe that human nature has not been totally corrupted. Through original sin human nature is wounded and inclined to sin.

Calvin never came up with the term "Total Deprivation" or Total Depravity that I'm aware of. Total Depravity is simply a term that states Calvin's principle that man is unable to initiate the calling of God to salvation. God must initiate the calling. The reason we beleive is simply because man's heart is constantly inclined to do evil things as we see from Genesis 6:5 (and many other verses). It will never seek God.

Now I understand the Catholics' position that the sanctifying "Grace of Baptism" erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. But how is man initially to be turned back to God if he's never been baptized into the "Grace of Baptism"? And without this initialization, he will never have his original sin erased.

Something always has to happen prior to man ever doing anything. And I have yet to hear one Christian tell me that God did not saved them. In testimony after testimony I constantly hear, "I was doing (fill in the blank) and then God (fill in the blank)". Deep down, in a Christian heart, they know the truth that without God they would never have been drawn to Him.

[HarleyD]

Are you telling me that either God was incompetent in His instructions to the Israelites or else He was deliberately telling them to do something meaningless?

Not at all. I believe the nation of Israel is an illustration to the church of how corrupt we are-even if choosen by God. As far back as Moses, God told the people of Israel (His choosen) that they would end up worshipping false gods and sacrificing their children on the burning fires of Molech. HEY! Sure enough; that's is eactly what happened. It should be a warning to us Christians (and Paul tells us not to get too big headed).

But doing nothing is not an option.

No one is saying to do nothing. Our love compels us to serve God and to follow His commands. It just that we must recognize why we are driven by this. It is not because of us but because of God.

[D-fendr]

I’m rushing to get ready for a trip and don’t have time to give your questions the time they deserve; but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the discussion and your courteous posts.

thanks and God bless..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You give every evidence of not understanding Calvinism or much of Christianity.

“Study to show thyself approved.”

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Have a safe trip and Happy Easter.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen!

God loves us not for what we do for Him, but for what He has done for us.

As Spurgeon wrote, God sees His Son’s spouse in us.

[MarkBsnr]

Are you telling me that either God was incompetent in His instructions to the Israelites or else He was deliberately telling them to do something meaningless?

Not at all. I believe the nation of Israel is an illustration to the church of how corrupt we are-even if choosen by God. As far back as Moses, God told the people of Israel (His choosen) that they would end up worshipping false gods and sacrificing their children on the burning fires of Molech. HEY! Sure enough; that's is eactly what happened. It should be a warning to us Christians (and Paul tells us not to get too big headed).

Interesting. Indeed, all the NT (not just Paul) tells us not to get too big headed. As a side note, do you believe that the Gospels are not meant for Christians, as some do?

But I would be interested as well to find out if you believe that Israel is God's chosen people, special to Him and where you think that they fit in with Christianity?

But doing nothing is not an option.

No one is saying to do nothing. Our love compels us to serve God and to follow His commands. It just that we must recognize why we are driven by this. It is not because of us but because of God.

Do you see 'compelling' as a combination of God's Grace influencing us, and our willing cooperation because of that influence, or as an overwhelming involuntary compulsion?