Featured English Bibles and the Apocrypha

thanks, a good friend on mine did have that Rsv with apocrypha, as was a catholic bible!

 

What were the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604), who crowned King James I and who was associated with several of the KJV translators, concerning the Apocrypha?

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).

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?

 

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.“

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.

 

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).

 

IF that viewpoint was the prominent one among the 1611 translators, then they were far from creating a perfect translation, as erred even in what was canon and inspired!

 

Yes, I have looked to obtain copies of many of the writings of the KJV translators as I can find or to locate copies that I could read. There are no known books written by some or many of the KJV translators.

 

While all the KJV translators were members of the Church of England, they are sometimes divided into two groups. The majority of the KJV translators would have been part of the High Church party in the Church of England with views more similar to those of Archbishop John Whitgift and Archbishop Richard Bancroft. A smaller number had been once part of the Puritan party in the Church of England although they had been forced to conform (or keep silent about some matters) by the 1604 canons by Richard Bancroft.

John Rainolds or Reynolds, who died in 1607, had been part of the Puritan party. The fewer Puritan-leaning makers of the KJV would have likely been more opposed to acceptance of the Apocrypha books than the larger High Church group may have been.

 

Much prefer them to be put in a separate bible by themselves, stating the Apocrypha!

 

From what I have read, I think that there are more misconceptions and misinformation about the Apocrypha from KJV-only authors than non-KJV-only authors. I do not recall any non-KJV-only advocate claiming that the KJV was the first English Bible to include the Apocrypha.

Many supporters of the KJV or KJV-only advocates do not seem to know that the Apocrypha was still in the 1769 Oxford edition and in most Oxford and Cambridge editions in the 1800's. If the official English printers of the KJV in the 1800's printed an edition without the Apocrypha, it was usually because it was a special edition printed for the British Foreign Bible Society or another Bible society that did not want it included.

 

Some of the statements cited were made in 1583, several years after 1574.

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).

 

Jeffrey Miller asserted: "Different translators in the Second Cambridge Company seem to have used different editions of the Apocrypha's Greek" (Feingold, Labourers, p. 260). There were some textual differences in those varying editions.

Samuel Ward is said to have used the 1597 Frankfurt edition of the Aldine Septuagint.

John Bois is said to have used the 1587 Rome edition of the Septuagint or Sixtine Septuagint based on Codex Vaticanus.

Nicholas Hardy asserted that Bois' copy of the Sixtine Septuagint "contains thousands of marginal and interlinear annotations in Bois's neat, distinctive hand" (Feingold, Labourers, p. 279).

William Branthwaite had Melanchthon's 1545 edition of the Aldine Septuagint.

 

The 1611 should have not included them in their translation, or should have stated as the Geneva that were not to be regarded as being inspired as the 66 books were!

 

None of them should have included them.....