Why did the first King James Bible (1611) include the Apocrypha?

Question

Besides the removal of the Apocrypha, have there been any other major changes to the KJB?

Answer 1

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others.

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes .



Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" (i.e., the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn't true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.

Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent4), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.

Answer 2

You are correct that the original KJV contained 80 books. The Latin Vulgate, which is still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, has 80 books. 14 of those books are labeled, "useful to read, but not inspired" in the introduction. However, you are confused about a few things: 1. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament. You said you aren't looking for the Torah, but the Bible you have found includes it. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, those are the books which our Jewish friends call the Torah. 2. Until 1546, no church group accepted those extra 14 books as Scripture. 3. The extra 14 books were rejected by the Jews as Scripture in about 50 AD. 4. There is an interesting article you should read, written by a really smart dude, on this very subject. 5. I'd suggest you read it. 6. When you first get a hold of that book of 1 Macabbees look up these 3 verses: 1 Maccabees 4:46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. 1 Maccabees 9:27 So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them. 1 Maccabees 14:41 Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet; 7. Now ask yourself what these three verses mean. Read it all, especially the Gospel of John.

Answer 3

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Answer 4

A few. The King James Version contained a spurious text at 1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” These words do not appear in the reliable and oldest manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures, and modern translations leave them out altogether or have a footnote acknowledging their absence from the oldest manuscripts.

The name of God - Jehovah - appeared in the KJV several times at such places as Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4; Psalm 83:18; Exodus 6:3 and in combination names such as at Genesis 22:14.

The New King James Version, however, has now removed the name completely.

Since God's name was found in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7,000 times and has been totally removed, that would seem to be a major change for the King James.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 5

Because the Early Church accepted the apocrypha and didn't debate its validity until the Protestant Reformation. If you accept a Bible without the apocrypha, you are accepting less than the Church who established the canon of scriptures ordained as the Bible. Even Martin Luther kept the apocrypha, though separate, in the back of his Bible. To be completely honest, Luther almost removed James and Hebrews, which could have been considered apocrypha today, by your standards, had he not decided it was best to leave them in. If you ask me, it makes no sense to leave the OT apocrypha out, even if you are protestant. I think this whole OT apocrypha thing came about because of a sort of "Rome-a-phobia" which takes the attitude 'well if Rome does it, it must be bad'.

Answer 6

Because they felt the need to include the history of the middle east between Malachi and the time of Christ. I'm not catholic but think the Apocrypha is good history. It explains where Hanukkah originated. There have been many changes from the 1611 version, mainly spelling to keep it updated with modern English. The version we now read called the KJV is actually a 1769 version.

Answer 7

There have been numerous changes to the KJV, the KJV of today is not the same as the 1611 version.

The Catholic Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the canonicity of these books (the Apocrypha), as found in the Latin Vulgate, and condemned those who reject them.

The King James translation was not created to "change" the Bible from previous translations, including the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint.

The KJV was born out of a need to still the voices of critics who had opposed the Bishops’ Bible and out of a need to bring uniformity into a confused situation. The desire was to make one translation out of many good ones, to which men could not justly take exceptions.”

The Council of Trent in 1545 declared the Latin Vulgate to be the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The KJV was heavily influenced by Latin.

The translators of the KJV anticipated much opposition to their efforts from Catholics and from non-conformists.

In 1629 John Lightfoot objected to the Apocrypha’s being included between the two Testaments. There are many reasons that the Apocrypha was deemed "uninspired" (see source for details).

Printing outside of England of the KJV was not permitted until after America had broken away from British rule. The first English Bible printed in America (1782) was the King James Version.

The current KJV differs in significant details (though not in general content) from the one issued in 1611. Early editions had many printing errors.
a. Matt. 26:36 KJV “then cometh Judas” rather than “then cometh Jesus.”
b. “Wicked Bible” omitted not in the seventh of the ten commandments.
c. “Unrighteous Bible” the “unrighteous inherit the Kingdom”
d. “Vinegar” Bible has the parable of the “Vinegar”
e. “Ears to Ear” Bible (ears to hear)
f. by 1613, as many as 413 changes were made in the KJV
g. Dr. Anthony Scattergood added 7,250 marginal reference notes in 1683.
h. Bishop Ussher’s chronology was added to the margin in 1701.
i. Benjamin Blayney made extensive revisions in 1769 adding 76 notes and 30,495 new marginal references. Spelling and punctuation were modernized.

The task of translation is on-going not only in English but also in all the languages of the world. The whole Bible has now been translated into 314 languages, and the New Testament into 715. The KJV, the NIV, or the NASB cannot meet the needs of those who do not speak English. Are there inspired translations in languages other than English?
Though some people have at times tried to claim inspiration for the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the KJV, translation is not an inspired activity. There are no perfect translations, old or new. Inspiration did not operate in 1611 or 1901 and then leave all other translations to fallible human activity.

It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes! Further, there are over 300 words in the King James that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. If one wishes to use a Bible that follows the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James, use the New King James Version. The KJV was translated from the original languages by committee. Unexcelled in literary quality, although now archaic. Does not reflect the best text base on recent scholarship (some editions give explanatory notes on the text). Translated in 1611 by 47 scholars using the Byzantine family of manuscripts, Textus Receptus. Its Elizabethan style Old English is difficult for modern readers, especially youth. This is still a good translation for those who can deal with the language.

The New King James Version (NKJV) used 130 translators, commissioned by Thomas Nelson Publishers, produced this version from the Byzantine family (Textus Receptus) in 1982. This is a revision of the King James version, updated to modern English with minor translation corrections and retention of traditional phraseology.

That does not mean that the original intent and commandments of God have been altered. God promised to preserve his Word and though the translations may change meanings to certain words, the overall plan of salvation and God's commandments have remained intact.

Answer 8

Silver made some errors in his post. The early Church never debated the status of the Old Testament as it accepted the Septuagint from the beginning, as that is the Bible quoted from by Jesus and it indeed contained the Deuterocanonical books. Even in the African Synods of the late fourth and early fifth century these books were never in question.

One must understand that there were several Canons used by various factions of Jews. Christians accepted the Essene/Diaspora Canon from the very beginning of the Church instead of the other Canons in use at the time.

As for the Deuterocanonicals in the first KJ translation, they were included because the Reformers accepted the entire Bible at first and only excluded certain books at a later time.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 9

Regarding specifically the 1611 King James Bible and its inclusion of The Apocrypha, consider this:

The King James Bible was translated into English from the original Greek and Hebrew between 1607 to 1610, and published in 1611 in London by authority of the King of England (King James).

If you want an original "King James Version" you need to get a true facsimile reproduction of that original, unaltered, uncharged, first edition printing of 1611. It is available at GREATSITE.COM if you click on "Facsimile Reproductions" and then select "1611 King James Bible" Here is direct-link:
http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

It is important to understand that in the 1760's the wording and spelling of the original 1611 King James Bible was "updated" by Blaney (1762) and Baskerville (1769)... so "King James Version" Bible printed after the 1760's are not the original 1611 version.

It is also important to understand that in 1885, the influence of textual critics Westcott & Hort contributed greatly to the removal of the 14 Inter-Testamental Books (the "Apocrypha") from the King James Bible, so all "King James Version" Bible sprinted after 1885 have 66 Books instead of 80. King James originally stated that if you printed his Bible WITHOUT the Apocrypha, he would put you in jail for one year and fine you one year of your wages.

Note that, contrary to popular misconception; there is absolutely nothing "Roman Catholic" about The Apocrypha... it was written around 400 B.C. by Jewish Believers, and the Apocrypha was part of every Protestant Bible, every Anglican Bible, every Christian Bible, for almost 2,000 years until its relatively recent removal in 1885.

That is why I say that if you want the original, unmolested, unaltered, uncharged "King James Bible", you need to get one printed in the 1600's... such as the 1611 First Edition, which you can obtain using the webpage links provided above... right here in my answer.

Answer 10

the Apocrypha was included in the KJV, but they placed them at the back I believe. therefore, they may not have viewed them as "inspired" but decided to include them nonetheless.