King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a public conference at Lambeth with Walter Travers and Thomas Sparks in December of 1583 the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives of the Puritans, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3). In the third portion of his Works as edited by John Ayre, John Whitgift is cited as saying or writing the following: “The apocrypha that we read in the Church have been so used of long time; as it may appear in that third council of Carthage, and 47 canon, where they be reckoned among the canonical books of the Scripture. They may as well be read in the church, as counted portions of the old and new testament; and, forasmuch as there is nothing in them contrary to the rest of the Scripture, I see no inconvenience, but much commodity that may come by the reading of them” (Works of John Whitgift, pp. 349-350). William Daubney asserted: “Archbishop Whitgift makes some remarkably strong statements in support of the Apocrypha, in relying to objections: ‘The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and improperly, are Holy Writings, void of error, part of the Bible, and so accounted of in the purest time of the Church and by the best writers; ever read in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent” (Use of the Apocrypha, p. 72; Strype, Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Vol. III, p. 137).

Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would likely have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?

 

Interesting post. However, the "Apocrypha" of the Old Testament never did form part of the original Books of the Canon of the Old Testament, nor were they included in the original Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, done about 150 years before Jesus Christ. Nor where the additional books treated as "Scripture" by the Jewish historian Josephusm or even originally by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate, though he added them later under pressure.

Sir Frederic Kenyon was one of the best authorities on textual studies, and what he says on the Apocrypha in the KJV Bible is important in our understanding.

"The Apocrypha in Subsequent English Bibles

To complete the story it may be noted that the Puritan party always manifested dislike for these books. They were omitted from some editions of the Geneva Bible. Copies of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha are known as early as 1629, though the numeration of the sheets shows that the books were printed, but omitted in binding up. This practice must have existed earlier, for it was forbidden by Archbishop Abbot in 1615. Copies of which it never formed part are known from 1642 onwards. In 1644 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of lessons from it in public; but the lectionary of the English Church has always included lessons from it. The first edition printed in America (apart from a surreptitious printing in 1752), in 1782, is without it. In 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society, which has been one of the principal agents in the circulation of the Scriptures throughout the world, resolved never in future to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha; and this resolution has recently debarred the Society from assisting in the printing of the Bible for the Church in Abyssinia, because the Ethiopic Bible, being translated from the Septuagint, has always contained the Apocryphal books." (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pages, 292-293)

 

Doesn't the fact that the translators put the books in a section with the title "Apocrypha" speaks for itself? (Hint what is the definition of the word Apocrypha?)

 

McClure's Translators Revived can be viewed HERE.

It is easy to see why "the reasons assigned" could be read as coming from those who translated the Apocrypha. But McClure doesn't actually say that. Absent finding some writings by some of the translators that says what McClure writes, we should not attribute it to them.

 

Possible source of reasons, with a little humor:

Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611 — 2011, p. 45

 

The KJV is the Bible of the Great Awakenings and the Global Missionary Movement
The second call to obedience to the Great Commission.

It is by far the greatest single work of literature of the English speaking world and changed the world itself into eternity.

But it is a translation. Used mightily of God, but a translation nonetheless.

Secondary Inspiration and Advance Revelation are IMO heresy.

HankD

 

But maybe not. Seems to be published in Latin and no English translation (though that factor alone wouldn't keep certain scholars from reading it):
Censura librorum apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, adversum pontificios, inprimis Robertum Bellarminum ; qua tum divina et canonica Sacrae Scripturae autoritas asseritur solidissime: tum variae quaestiones & controversiae ... inprimis quae est de duratione monarchiae Persicae, & de 70. hebdom. Danielis expediuntur accuratissime, praelectionibus ducentis et quinquaginta posthumis in Academia Oxoniensi tractata a Johanne Rainoldo

 

Perhaps its definition is not what some KJV-only advocates have claimed.

You choose to ignore or avoid some other facts from the 1611 edition of the KJV.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“

Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?

 

All I did was do a google search on the word apocrypha. anyone else can easily do the same.

I mean what is your definition of Apocrypha?

Do tell me, if the KJV translators had thought the Apocrypha to be part of the scriptures, why did they put it in it's own separate section? WHY?

You are so blinded by your anti KJV position that you can't seem to accept the truth that is staring you in the face.

The Apocrypha argument to bash on the KJV is a extremely weak argument.

 

Perhaps both of you might be so kind as to give your definitions.

Thanks.

 

The Apocrypha argument of the KJV is that the translators still wore some papal grave clothes (which they later discarded).

 

THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE!

Please tell us, O KJVO....

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the KJVO myth? It's not found in the KJV itself.

The KJVO myth is entirely man-made, with its current derived from a cult official's book, promoted by two dishonest authors who heavily plagiarized from that cultic's book, hawked today by ill-informed "authors' who repeat the same ole hooey such as the false "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" which comes straight from that cult official's book. I, and several others, have posted the origin of the current KJVO myth elsewhere in this sub-forum. (Psalm 12:7 is about PEOPLE, as the AV 1611 itself proves! (In the AV 1611, there's a marginal note for the 2nd "them" in V7 which reads, "Heb. him, I.Euery one of them.")

These wannabee current KJVO authors are all seeking a teat on the KJVO "cash cow".

The KJVO myth is a product of Satan's, who uses it to promote argument , dissent, & division among and between congregations.

NO KJVO CAN SHOW US ANYTHING FROM GOD SUPPORTING THE KJVO MYTH !!!!!!!!!!!

 

I do not hold any "anti-KJV position" so you jump to making incorrect allegations. I accept and read the KJV as what it actually is. I have read the KJV over 50 years. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions is not being "anti-KJV" as you incorrectly assume or allege. I defend the KJV as what it is against those who try to make the KJV into something that it is not.

You do not demonstrate that I do not accept the truth. I attempt to consider all the relevant facts, not selectively considering a few of them and misrepresenting them. You refused to accept and face some facts that were presented that clearly demonstrate that the Church of England in that day had a higher regard for the Apocrypha than KJV-only advocates acknowledge.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. The cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?

If the word "Apocrypha" by itself in the 1500's clearly identified books as not Scripture, why did the pre-1611 English Bibles clearly present a disclaimer concerning them? Because a word may have a different or clear meaning now, it does not prove that it had that same meaning in the late 1500's and early 1600's. Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“

Do you refuse to accept the truth that portions of the Apocrypha were read in the Church of England in that day?

 

And just as the Model T "put America on wheels", the KJV put God's word into the hands of many English readers. But the Model T became obsolete, & was replaced with cars suited to modern roads. Same with the KJV, which is replaced with English Bible translations in CURRENT English.

 

KJVOs tend to ignore that little word "as" in Psalm 12:6, which proves David was COMPARING God's words to silver refined 7 times. He did NOT write that God's words had been refined 7 times! He was writing they were already pure from the instant God spoke them.

 

Agreed!

HankD