Featured English Bibles and the Apocrypha

I still do not know if Calvin was the executioner as so many painted him out to have been here!

 

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).
Our primary source of information about the third council of Carthage, held in A.D. 397, is an ancient document known as the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. Karl Joseph von Hefele, in his History of the Councils of the Church, 1 states that this compilation was done in the year 419 by Dionysius Exiguus, who called it the Statuta Concilii Africani. Others have called it the "African Code." In one section of this code there is a record of the ordinances enacted at the third council of Carthage, in which the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears. 2
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
Hefele maintains that this canon derives from an earlier council, convened in 393 at Hippo Regius, 7 and that the third council of Carthage simply incorporated it, along with many other statutes of the earlier council.

However, the sentence "Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon" cannot belong to either of these councils. Westcott writes:

The third Council of Carthage was held in the year 397 A.D. in the pontificate of Siricus; and Boniface did not succeed to the Roman chair till the year 418 A.D.; so that the allusion to him is at first sight perplexing. Yet this anachronism admits of a reasonable solution. In the year 419 A.D., after the confirmation of Boniface in the Roman epsicopate, the Canons of the African Church were collected and formed into one code. In the process of such a revision it was perfectly natural that some reference should be made to foreign churches on such a subject as the contents of Scripture, which were fixed by usage rather than by law. The marginal note which directed the inquiry was suffered to remain, probably because the plan was never carried out; and that which stood in the text of the general code was afterwards transferred to the text of the original Synod." 8

In connection with this, it has been observed that at least one manuscript indicates that the original wording of the sentence was “De confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur” (“For the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted”). This is the reading adopted by Hefele for his reconstruction of the council of Hippo, and Westcott mentions it in a note. 9 More recent authors tend to present the canon of the third council of Carthage with this emendation. 10

We also observe the peculiar manner in which the Epistle to the Hebrews is listed: “Epistolae Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos una.” Here ejusdem looks like a later addition. In any case, the anachronism in the penultimate sentence shows that we do not have the canon in its original form here. The original canon has been edited by someone who has adapted it to churchly developments after 418 A.D.

Books of the Apocrypha are named in this list: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and the expression "five books of Solomon" implies the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Augustine, in his City of God and On Christian Doctrine, says that in addition to Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are often ascribed to Solomon). Some have attributed the inclusion of these books to the influence of Augustine in Hippo and Carthage, because in his writings he sometimes treats them as canonical. But the canon itself purports to give a list of books which were traditionally read in the African churches: “quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda.”

 

It is important to note that Bancroft, whatever his views on the Apocrypha, was a convinced Calvinist. He had published the Lambeth Articles around 1596, which were very strongly Calvinist (check them out on line).
Of the 47 scholars who comprised the translators of the KJV there was a variety of theology, although all would have given at least lip service to the XXXIX Articles.
Some were 'High Church' men such as Lancelot Andrewes, William Barlow and Richard Thomson. Others were Calvinist without being Puritan, such as George Abbot, Samuel Ward and Daniel Featley. Others again were moderate Puritans like John Reynolds, Laurence Chatterton and Thomas Sparke, all of whom had attended the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.

All the translators were esteemed Hebrew and Greek scholars. To the unbiased observer it would seem that James was more concerned about obtaining the best scholarship than about theology.

It is well known that over 80% of the KJV NT is from Tyndale. What James did demand and obtain was that ekklesia was translated as 'church rather than as 'congregation,' and that episkopos was rendered as 'bishop' rather than 'overseer.'

 

QUOTE="Yeshua1] I am waiting to hear from our resident KJVO! [sic] [/QUOTE]
Please! Will you and @Logos 1560 give it a rest! What is this hatred of the KJV which makes you want incessantly to attack those who prefer to use the KJV?
The translators did not need to state that the Apocrypha was not canonical because the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England listed the canonical books of the O.T. and then declared (Art. V!),
'And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:........ And here are listed all the books of the Apocrypha.
Now all the translators would have had to avow their full agreement with the Articles at their ordination as all C of E clerics were obliged to do until some time in the 1970s.

Interestingly, every single edition of the KJV contained the Apocrypha until 1666, not because it was the law, but because it was the custom. It is strange that even the most zealous Puritans under Cromwell did not think to omit the Apocrypha; it had to wait until the Restoration of Charles II.

So give it a rest!

 

Please! Will you and @Logos 1560 give it a rest! What is this hatred of the KJV which makes you want incessantly to attack those who prefer to use the KJV?
The translators did not need to state that the Apocrypha was not canonical because the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England listed the canonical books of the O.T. and then declared (Art. V!),
'And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:........ And here are listed all the books of the Apocrypha.
Now all the translators would have had to avow their full agreement with the Articles at their ordination as all C of E clerics were obliged to do until some time in the 1970s.

Interestingly, every single edition of the KJV contained the Apocrypha until 1666, not because it was the law, but because it was the custom. It is strange that even the most zealous Puritans under Cromwell did not think to omit the Apocrypha; it had to wait until the Restoration of Charles II.

So give it a rest![/QUOTE]
My brother, neither of us "hate" the Kjv, as he uses it still as his main version believe, and I just am again st those who are into the Kjvo perversion of it, not the Kjv itself!

 

Your bogus allegation bears false witness. I have no hatred of the KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept it as what it actually is. I support the stating of the truth concerning the KJV.

I prefer to use the KJV. I do not attack those who prefer to use the KJV. KJV-only advocates do not present their unproven assertions or exclusive only claims for the KJV as being merely a personal subjective preference.

 

Can you provide clear documentation that they all were esteemed as such?

In the case of some of the KJV translators, very little is known about their education and scholarship so how could those be esteemed for something that is not known about them? Likely they all had studied Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, but that does not automatically mean that they were all "esteemed" Hebrew and Greek scholars. Some of them seem to have been known more as Latin scholars than Hebrew or Greek scholars, and they had likely studied Hebrew and Greek through means of Latin as they used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons. Some of them were esteemed scholars in either Hebrew or Greek or both, but that does not mean that all of them were.

Perhaps your statement is more assumption and over-generalization than demonstrated fact.

 

Your protestations are not borne out by your actions on this thread where you immediately changed the emphasis of the O.P. and attacked John Whitgift who was not one of the translation team, and via him to cast aspersions on the translators themselves.
Nor is it borne out by your posts on this Board where the vast majority of your posts have been attacks on the KJV. If there were constant aggressive claims by KJV-only people it might be understandable, but I have very rarely seen them. Most of the KJV posts seem to be started by you. Give it a rest!

 

'James, then, backed the project for a new translation. He personally appointed 47 scholars, who met in various committees in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster over a three year period (1607-10). These scholars were not from any single school of thought; James, it would appear, was more concerned about their scholarship than their theology' Prof. N. Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ's Power Vol. 4. ISBN 978-1-78191-781-7.

 

You fail to prove your allegation to be true.

Pointing out problems with unproven KJV-only claims and assertions is not an attack on the KJV. You are misrepresenting proper criticism of KJV-onlyism as being something that it is not. Opposing non-scriptural, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not an attack on the KJV. I support my scripturally-based objections to modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching by presenting points based on the translation of Scripture as found in the KJV. My scripture references are to verses as translated in the KJV.

 

That statement from one source does not document and assert that all of them were esteemed scholars in Hebrew and Greek. Because they were all said to be scholars does not mean that they were all esteemed Hebrew and Greek scholars. Some of them may have been Latin scholars.

Some sources would say that 54 scholars were appointed, and some suggest that James approved a list of men picked by Archbishop Richard Bancroft with perhaps the assistance of Lancelot Andrewes and others instead of personally appointing them himself.

Gustavus Paine asserted that Lancelot Andrewes "chose many other translators" (Men Behind the KJV, p. xiii), John Mincy affirmed that Andrewes was one of the "three men who screened suggestions for prospective translators and presented them to the king" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 133).

 

Is it well known as a fact or is perhaps it an often repeated unproven overgeneralization?

Have you personally collated and compared an edition of Tyndale's NT with the KJV's NT? Have many of those who make or repeat this claim actually completely compared the two? Some of the ones who have partially compared them make the claim as generalized estimate or guess. Some may see the similarities and then generalize, overlooking the many actual differences. In looking back and forth between the two, it is very easy to miss some of the differences.

I have compared an edition of Tyndale's NT with the KJV's NT, and I marked the differences that I noticed in that Tyndale's. I later again compared the Gospel of Matthew in Tyndale's and in the KJV and found that I had missed many differences in looking back and forth.

 

Also which edition of Tyndale is used in the comparision matters. 1526, Tyndale's first edition. Substantial 1534 revision. 1535 revision.

 

Logos 1560 has never attacted the KJV. Logos 1560 points out the flaws in KJVOnly thinking.

 

Does the person engaging in seeming negative personal attacks that improperly and falsely attribute motives to me that are not mine oppose the stating of the truth concerning modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching and concerning the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision?

I have repeatedly noted that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.
The preserved Scriptures in the original languages remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

 

There are sound reasons to say that there was a need. The 1611 edition of the KJV itself provides one clear reason since a heading in it in effect suggests that the apocrypha is scripture. 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. This same heading is also in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer.

The fact that portions of the Apocrypha were read on certain Sundays in the state church would be another reason why that it should have been stated in the 1611 that the Apocrypha was not Scripture. Many of the common people in the pews were former Roman Catholics, and they likely had not read the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. When former Roman Catholics heard portions of the Apocrypha read in church, they were likely given the impression that it was being regarded as Scripture the same as the portions of Scripture read on other Sundays.

Another reason there was such a need is the fact that some of the authorized sermons (the Books of Homilies) read in the state churches in effect suggested that the Apocrypha was Scripture. 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). 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).