KJV and Apocrypha?
Does anyone know if the original King James Version of the Bible included the books of the Apocrypha?
Comments
-
Yes it always has been there. Indeed for many decades it was illegal to print it without the apocrypgpha. Most Bibles of the time had them including the Geneva Bible.
-dan
0 -
Thanks for the answer.
0 -
Hi there - I understand that the first edition of the King James Bible (1611) had the apocrypha, but by at least 1629 when it was printed at Cambridge, the apocrypha was removed. You might be interested in these general articles though there is of course much more out there on this issue.
The Encyclopedia Britannica:
The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible of 1599. The King James Version of 1611 placed it between the Old and New Testaments. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade the issuance of Bibles without the Apocrypha, but editions of the King James Version from 1630 on often omitted it from the bound copies. The Geneva Bible edition of 1640 was probably the first to be intentionally printed in England without the Apocrypha, followed in 1642 by the King James Version. In 1644 the Long Parliament actually forbade the public reading of these books, and three years later the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians decreed them to be no part of the canon. The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827 resolved never to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha. Most English Protestant Bibles in the 20th century have omitted the disputed books or have them as a separate volume, except in library editions, in which they are included with the Old and New Testaments.
Source: ‘Biblical literature, old testament canon, texts and versions, the canon’ in Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016).
This is also the general approach taken in an article on the King James Bible in Wikipedia (See subheading ‘the apocrypha’ at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version). Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Apocrypha, Old and New Testament,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 129 comments:
Nowadays the Apocrypha is not found in most editions of the Bible. However, in the early days of English Bible-printing it was simply normative to find the Apocrypha in the text.
The first English Bibles to exclude the Apocrypha were the Wycliffe Bible (1382) and some copies of the Geneva Bible of 1560 published at Geneva in 1599. Translators of the 1611 KJV translated the Apocrypha right along with the canonical books. A few years afterwards Archbishop Abbot issued a decree threatening a year’s imprisonment to any Bible printer deleting the Apocrypha. In 1644, Parliament ordered only canonical books to be read aloud in church, which may have contributed to a more lenient atmosphere for printers of Scripture in the following years.
The first Bibles printed in America in English (1782) did not contain the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued printing Bibles with the Apocrypha altogether. Among contemporary Protestants only the Anglicans make use of the Apocrypha to any degree.
Keep well
Paul
0 -
Also in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible:
At the time of the Reformation, Protestants and Catholics differed sharply as to the relative worth of these books. The Catholic Church at its Council of Trent (1546) declared Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther and Daniel, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees to occupy an accredited place in the canon of Scripture. Some Protestants, like Lutherans and Anglicans, followed the position of Luther who, while denying the books biblical authority, looked upon them as “profitable and good to read.” Reformed churches, on the other hand, classified the books as having no value above any other human writings. That conviction was spelled out clearly in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643–46), which said,
The Books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are not part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.0 -
While true many protestants make no use of the apocrypha Lutherans too use the Apocrypha as often as Anglicans which admittedly is not too often. As for how common it is among modern translations it really depends on who is doing the work. It remains invaluable in understanding the background of NT era religious thought, Paul quotes the wisdom of Solomon in Roman’s (which is not to say he assumed it scripture just that its thoughts and phrases were common in Hellenistic Jewish circles). But considering that the vast majority of the world’s Christian churches (by population) include the books it verges on arrogance to ignore them completely. Even Luther who did not consider them scripture called them Christian books edifying for reading. The Bible Society has printed Bibles with the Apocrypha in them again starting in the 20th century and their translation handbook series includes books for translating the Apocryphal books.
-dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
But considering that the vast majority of the world’s Christian churches (by population) include the books it verges on arrogance to ignore them completely.
I guess that for Protestants at least, its simply a case as to why you should read them. If the desire is to read inspired Scripture, then Protestants do well ignoring (or at least setting aside) the apocrypha as it is outside their canon of Scripture. Its not arrogance to have a strong desire to hold to the inspired Word of God above any human writing. Similarly, to take a different direction on the apocrypha than the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, (by population, the majority of the world's Christian churches) makes perfect sense given some of the uses that have been made of apocryphal texts. Its also a matter of denominational difference.
We are very fortunate in our day to have a wealth of resources for studying the background to the NT and the apocrypha has its place among those materials. You are right to say they should not be ignored completely. Keep well Paul
0 -
Paul said:
I guess that for Protestants at least, its simply a case as to why you should read them.
This is drifting way off topic for what is allowed in the forums, but I will try to answer anyway.
There are many ways to read the Bible. There are some who try to just read the Bible and say that is enough - and I would even agree that in the Bible God has given us enough for the Holy Spirit to use to communicate our salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ. That said, there are countless expressions in the Bible taken from the cultural world surrounding it, and so it is useful for us to compare what we see when we read Scripture with what others have seen when they read Scripture. It is useful to see and make studies how certain words and phrases are used in Scripture and in the surrounding world. And it is useful to see certain themes and concepts as they have developed throughout the Scripture. A big reason why I use Logos Bible Software instead of just a free software ESV bible is because I find so much use to these types of things.
And many of the books in the "Apocrypha" offer many of those things to our New Testament. It offers historical background from the perspective of Faith in the God of Israel about the complex interaction between these people and the larger Grecco-Roman world. It offers ideas - some taken up by the New Testament, and some passed over, about how the people can faithfully respond. And all this can inform how one reads the New Testament - even if one does not admit that those answers and perspectives are necessarily canonical.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Thank all of you for the interesting comments.
0
